Jump to content

ByePolar


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, White Chocolate said:

And yet, we’re still the 3rd ranked alliance in the game and not 

You can thank the 9 other alliances we are fighting, for your temporary 3 rank 😆1600 wars>900 wars. Catch up CLAWS, all you're good for is filling slots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 208
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

8 hours ago, Sarkin said:

 

If you didn't realize, your own coalition mate is regularly posting war stats. The latest went up a few hours ago.

 

Here were the percentages of active nations for each coalition:

  • Us: 67.2%
  • You: 71.5%
  • Difference: 4.3 percentage points in your favor

Here were the offensive wars declared by each coalition (crediting Polar's prior declarations over from us to you):

  • Us: 3,528
  • You: 3,232
  • Difference: 296 declarations in our favor

All this crowing about activity is a little melodramatic.

 

Here's the truth: your coalition did well pulling together alienated folks and waging a competitive war. The folks involved should feel legitimately proud of that achievement, and credit to them, they were more politically active in recent history. We'll see over the coming years if or how that changes.

 

However, if we're talking about military activity, based on the actual war stats, the differences are negligible. If you're world-conquering behemoths, so are we. If we're inactive husks, so are you. It's silly to pretend otherwise.

 

Just one small comment on this (and this is really how I lazily set up this part of the stats) - the general active% average for the coalition is not a good metric, as the average is not weighted by # of nations in each alliance. Therefore one side or the other can/will have a bunch of micros that either increase or lower this stat by quite a bit.

 

Until I fix that, its better to look at individual alliances and compare, which unfortunately still doesn't tell a full story. For example, ODN is more active than a bunch of other alliances on either side, yet has managed to declare 0 wars in the last few months.

 

I came up with a different metric to look at alliance activity/participation in the war - the involvement score (which is basically share of wars compared to share of active members of the entire coalition) in the alliance stats I present. Alliances with this score > 1 are basically actively participating in the war, others, not so much.

Edited by Piejonk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Piejonk said:

 

Just one small comment on this (and this is really how I lazily set up this part of the stats) - the general active% average for the coalition is not a good metric, as the average is not weighted by # of nations in each alliance. Therefore one side or the other can/will have a bunch of micros that either increase or lower this stat by quite a bit.

 

Until I fix that, its better to look at individual alliances and compare, which unfortunately still doesn't tell a full story. For example, ODN is more active than a bunch of other alliances on either side, yet has managed to declare 0 wars in the last few months.

 

I came up with a different metric to look at alliance activity/participation in the war - the involvement score (which is basically share of wars compared to share of active members of the entire coalition) in the alliance stats I present. Alliances with this score > 1 are basically actively participating in the war, others, not so much.

 

Oh, yeah, that is a bad aggregate metric then. Thank you for clarifying!

 

I don't agree with using involvement score as a proxy for activity either, though. Looking through the alliance-by-alliance breakdowns, it's evident that some of the alliances with the highest involvement scores are those who received the most attention from the opposing coalition. For example, looking at your coalition, the three non-micro leaders are CCC (1.99), Fark (1.61), and Sparta (1.58), all of whom are actually underwater in terms of their ratio to offensive and defensive wars (barely for Fark and heavily for CCC and Sparta). I do think the stat makes sense intrinsically and "involvement score" is a good name for it, but an inactive alliance could get hammered and do well according to it. It's not really dependent on the alliance's actual activity.

 

To my eye, the most relevant metric we currently have for this discussion is offensive wars declared, since that's a very literal "are people active enough to choose to be involved" figure. Our coalition has more nations than yours (826 vs. 697 as of my last count) so that would skew it in our favor, but as your folks have argued ad nauseum, many of our nations literally can't declare offensive wars at the moment due to a lack of targets, which would roughly even out that difference.

 

Any way you slice it, it's hard to justify the hyperbolic claims about one side being dramatically more active than the other.

Edited by Sarkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Sarkin said:

I don't agree with using involvement score as a proxy for activity either, though. Looking through the alliance-by-alliance breakdowns, it's evident that some of the alliances with the highest involvement scores are those who received the most attention from the opposing coalition. For example, looking at your coalition, the three non-micro leaders are CCC (1.99), Fark (1.61), and Sparta (1.58), all of whom are actually underwater in terms of their ratio to offensive and defensive wars (barely for Fark and heavily for CCC and Sparta). I do think the stat makes sense intrinsically and "involvement score" is a good name for it, but an inactive alliance could get hammered and do well according to it. It's not really dependent on the alliance's actual activity.

 

The reason why I don't simply count offensive wars is because alliances that get hammered would have bad scores then - they're not able to declare offensive wars. I could count offensive wars less than defensive and try to do some sort of composite but then it starts getting very complicated. I think this rather simplistic score I made up is more telling for large alliances that have been in the war for a long time - if you have a certain # of active members but theres a mismatch in the number of wars that you're declaring, maybe you can infer that something is off (not always the case - see DBDC, no targets). No one stat can tell the tale, and in the example of CCC I'm rather impressed they're doing so well considering they've been hammered the entire time.

 

Anyways, I'll leave the stat talk at that here, if you want to talk more about this stuff reach out to me (especially if it would be about how to improve some things).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sarkin said:

 

Oh, yeah, that is a bad aggregate metric then. Thank you for clarifying!

 

I don't agree with using involvement score as a proxy for activity either, though. Looking through the alliance-by-alliance breakdowns, it's evident that some of the alliances with the highest involvement scores are those who received the most attention from the opposing coalition. For example, looking at your coalition, the three non-micro leaders are CCC (1.99), Fark (1.61), and Sparta (1.58), all of whom are actually underwater in terms of their ratio to offensive and defensive wars (barely for Fark and heavily for CCC and Sparta). I do think the stat makes sense intrinsically and "involvement score" is a good name for it, but an inactive alliance could get hammered and do well according to it. It's not really dependent on the alliance's actual activity.

 

To my eye, the most relevant metric we currently have for this discussion is offensive wars declared, since that's a very literal "are people active enough to choose to be involved" figure. Our coalition has more nations than yours (826 vs. 697 as of my last count) so that would skew it in our favor, but as your folks have argued ad nauseum, many of our nations literally can't declare offensive wars at the moment due to a lack of targets, which would roughly even out that difference.

 

Any way you slice it, it's hard to justify the hyperbolic claims about one side being dramatically more active than the other.


This is unbalanced too. If you average CCC across the alliance each member has spent close to 100 days in a defensive war (aka heavily in anarchy) and unable to declare wars at all. 
 

Im not sure how you look at it to be honest. I mainly go by the chart on the bottom as I think that’s the most accurate.

 

Also I was in PM for a week to restock nukes and dropped 25 spots so obviously all of these stats are very inaccurate (joke.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until the dust of the war settles there is every reason to believe you @Sarkin and most of the Hegemony as a whole are only active now because we forced your hand. Our active is natural and constant. Yours is forced and reactionary. This is an important difference.

Also, while we fight for many reasons and varied reasons across our coalition. A significant portion of us do have a goal of increasing activity. Not just this temporary military activity but yes, political activity, activity in general. Meanwhile the goal of the Hegemony is to hold onto power and security despite this stagnating overall CN activity.

In this way it can be said; we fight FOR activity. You fight AGAINST it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, kerschbs said:


This is unbalanced too. If you average CCC across the alliance each member has spent close to 100 days in a defensive war (aka heavily in anarchy) and unable to declare wars at all. 
 

Im not sure how you look at it to be honest. I mainly go by the chart on the bottom as I think that’s the most accurate.

 

Also I was in PM for a week to restock nukes and dropped 25 spots so obviously all of these stats are very inaccurate (joke.)

 

I agree that offensive wars as a metric of activity has a significant drawback when applied to individual alliances, and I didn't mean to suggest that CCC has been loafing around.

 

However, I don't think that same issue applies when you're looking at the aggregate coalition-level figures. Ultimately, the coalition that does a better job of staggering their opponent (which is a reasonable marker of activity) earns the ability to declare more offensive wars. That might not be true for individual alliances within the coalition if they're receiving disproportionate attention from the enemy, but that disproportionate attention ought to free up nations elsewhere in the coalition to balance it out.

 

Incidentally, maybe the best measure would involve some mixture of offensive wars, defensive wars, and aid slot usage %. The aid input should probably be over a span of time, since it's more volatile and a snapshot could be misleading compared to the other two inputs. That would penalize people in peace mode, but they have it coming, and it would probably still be a step up from offensive wars. 

 

4 minutes ago, Canik said:

Until the dust of the war settles there is every reason to believe you @Sarkin and most of the Hegemony as a whole are only active now because we forced your hand. Our active is natural and constant. Yours is forced and reactionary. This is an important difference.

Also, while we fight for many reasons and varied reasons across our coalition. A significant portion of us do have a goal of increasing activity. Not just this temporary military activity but yes, political activity, activity in general. Meanwhile the goal of the Hegemony is to hold onto power and security despite this stagnating overall CN activity.

In this way it can be said; we fight FOR activity. You fight AGAINST it.

 

Sometimes, when the sun hangs in the sky just right, I can still see the old Canik buried down there, deep below the well of bitterness. :)

 

Friend, be happy that your efforts were successful. You've done the thing that others tried and failed to do for seven entire years, almost half the lifespan of this world: climb to the top of the mountain to give us a hard shove. Now we're locked in arms, and the world hangs in the balance. 

 

This is amongst the most closely contested global wars in history. From my perspective, this "temporary military activity" is likely to last for years. We've already seen a political realignment with Polar finally picking a side, which thankfully has neatly separated the treaty web into two competitively sized spheres, each with its own areas of strength. If Oculus wants to hold on to power (and why wouldn't we?), we'll have to work for it. And, by the same token, you'll need to keep your efforts up to finish what you started. 

 

This world may be past saving (folks were saying as much long before Oculus rolled around), but if it has a chance, I think it'll take us both. Now is not the time for cynicism and death cults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kerschbs said:

If you average CCC across the alliance each member has spent close to 100 days in a defensive war


And done mighty well I might add despite that. At the height of this war, we were outnumbered like 630 to 35 or 18 to 1 in nation counts. Thanks to some FA shake up, it has dropped to around 540 to 35 or 15 to 1. 


Despite those differences, our nations have massively fought back, gotten free of anarchy, and declared more wars. Those who were lucky to make it peace mode restocked and went right back in. Thankful for our allies who have helped prepare us long before this conflict and continue to support our nations. Wait for the next war. 😉


As of yesterday, we had 502 defensive wars to just 161 offensive wars between about 28 nations. That’s around 15 defensive wars per fighting nation and 5 offensive wars per fighting nation. I’m proud of our crusaders and no one will ever take that away from us.

 

Long live the active. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sarkin said:

Sometimes, when the sun hangs in the sky just right, I can still see the old Canik buried down there, deep below the well of bitterness. :)

 

Friend, be happy that your efforts were successful. You've done the thing that others tried and failed to do for seven entire years, almost half the lifespan of this world: climb to the top of the mountain to give us a hard shove. Now we're locked in arms, and the world hangs in the balance. 

 

This is amongst the most closely contested global wars in history. From my perspective, this "temporary military activity" is likely to last for years. We've already seen a political realignment with Polar finally picking a side, which thankfully has neatly separated the treaty web into two competitively sized spheres, each with its own areas of strength. If Oculus wants to hold on to power (and why wouldn't we?), we'll have to work for it. And, by the same token, you'll need to keep your efforts up to finish what you started. 

 

This world may be past saving (folks were saying as much long before Oculus rolled around), but if it has a chance, I think it'll take us both. Now is not the time for cynicism and death cults.


Happiness leads to complacency. Complacency leads to inactivity. Inactivity leads to the dark side.

I am happy though you openly recognize our success. There may be hope for you yet. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TheBigBad said:

 

There was a day when a threat from Pacifica meant something.  Now you might as well be Claws.  It is not even fun to troll you al because it is like trolling the dead.   This is what I hear from you,

"hey if we can get a few active nations to attack you we will, the Doom guys make fun of us because we blow just about every stagger.  I have no idea who is in charge at Pacifica, so I am here alone trying to pretend we are not a complete corpse." 

They really should put you in charge. your trolling is a little 2007 but, at least you are out here.  You deserve better.  You would be a great fit in NG.  Old timer that likes to troll and is active.  And you would at least have back up.  Think about it.  Either take over or find a new home where you are not a one man show.  

6wy2oa.jpg

We ain't got money, we don't have wonders but we get energy from the Polar Odor air...we talk to Polar bears and we F@#% Nuclear Waste Maaaannn....🤡 NGers hate me and I hate them, it keeps me warm! Chortle Grub or trade some Roids to Road Rash and buy yourself some wonders....:war:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Stonewall14 said:

6wy2oa.jpg

We ain't got money, we don't have wonders but we get energy from the Polar Odor air...we talk to Polar bears and we F@#% Nuclear Waste Maaaannn....🤡 NGers hate me and I hate them, it keeps me warm! Chortle Grub or trade some Roids to Road Rash and buy yourself some wonders....:war:

 

Dude, I know there isn't a 'no selfies' rule on the forums, but you could at least wear a shirt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Bionic redhead said:

 

Dude, I know there isn't a 'no selfies' rule on the forums, but you could at least wear a shirt.

really dood that's all you got!?! Obviously that's a big bad vampire and you're half ass attempt at trolling me is sad...😝

6wyg4m.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stonewall14 said:

6wy2oa.jpg

We ain't got money, we don't have wonders but we get energy from the Polar Odor air...we talk to Polar bears and we F@#% Nuclear Waste Maaaannn....🤡 NGers hate me and I hate them, it keeps me warm! Chortle Grub or trade some Roids to Road Rash and buy yourself some wonders....:war:

I don't hate you.

 

I feel sorry for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stonewall14 said:

really dood that's all you got!?! Obviously that's a big bad vampire and you're half ass attempt at trolling me is sad...😝

6wyg4m.jpg

 

Imagine using 'you smell' as an insult over the internet in 2022. Is the number 14 in your username your age or your year of birth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Bionic redhead said:

 

Imagine using 'you smell' as an insult over the internet in 2022. Is the number 14 in your username your age or your year of birth?

it's how many times I choked your mama out....RIP 🤡

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Canik said:



In this way it can be said; we fight FOR activity. You fight AGAINST it.

63 of your 113 nations are in peace mode currently and it’s been that way since the war has started.

 

Enjoy that “activity” you’re fighting for.  

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.


×
×
  • Create New...