Dochartaigh Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 11) New Polar Order Colour: Blue NS: 7.8M NpO-NPO MDoAP: MDoAP with NPO; total NS 29.4M, tension 1043 (134 per M NS) NpO-RoK MDoAP: MDoAP with RoK; total NS 16.1M, tension 241 (31 per M NS) Valhalla-NpO MDoAP: MDoAP with Valhalla; total NS 12.9M, tension 340 (43 per M NS) The Bi-Polar Accords: MDoAP with GR; total NS 12.4M, tension 138 (17 per M NS) NV-NpO MDoAP: MDoAP with NV; total NS 11.9M, tension 112 (14 per M NS) Permafrost: MDP with STA; total NS 9.8M, tension 101 (13 per M NS) Brrds and Lions can be best of friends: MDoAP with Genesis; total NS 9.4M, tension 7 (0 per M NS) ARES-Genesis MDoAP: MDoAP with ARES; total NS 9.1M, tension 39 (5 per M NS) don't think the last treaty is right.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 You may have a point there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmonkey24 Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Is there a 3rd party site where we can find the interactive web? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
im317 Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Is there a 3rd party site where we can find the interactive web? i imagine it may be possible to learn about via PMs with the author, but im not sure. also have i mentioned how epic this is recently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Logan Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 The inherent flaw of CN. Looking at this makes you realize that just about everyone that counts is treatied to everybody else in one way or the other. In the real word, you wouldn't treaty yourself with someone who has a treaty with an enemy of yours, but this is Bob. The web is so complicated now that it's almost mute to even have one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyriq Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Hey Bob Janova, reading the above post got me thinking that even though World Politics of Bob don't quite run by the same rules as rl, there still must exist fault lines where conflict could cause seismic shifts in the political landscape . Where do you or others think that they lie? Does your tension paradigm hint at where those are and if so could you elaborate? Anyway, if you take the time to answer this than thank you in advance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles VI Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Dear mother of God. That list is intimidating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 I don't want to start putting my subjective interpretations on the web. Everything that is displayed in the OP is the objective result of running a physical model, and if it doesn't show any clear divisions (which it doesn't imo) then perhaps there aren't any. If you think the treaty tension has a deep meaning that will show you how the cookie will crumble, then feel free to interpret it as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyriq Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 I don't want to start putting my subjective interpretations on the web. Everything that is displayed in the OP is the objective result of running a physical model, and if it doesn't show any clear divisions (which it doesn't imo) then perhaps there aren't any. If you think the treaty tension has a deep meaning that will show you how the cookie will crumble, then feel free to interpret it as such. Well, alrighty then, I can appreciate that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 (edited) Full update. TSO make a dramatic entry to the web at no. 56, and CCC stave off their removal by re-entering the top 80. Making way for these two are Blackwater and ARES, the latter of which dropped an astonishing 13 places in the rankings table. Both alliances will be removed next week unless I get a signal not to do so by membership (who will take on the responsibility of maintaining their data). UBD and Nebula-X are removed from the web as mentioned at the last update, having not re-entered the top 80. Biggest Winner: Vanguard, Dark Templar and CCC, all ▲4 Biggest Loser ARES, ▼13 All movement: NpO: Up 1 Grä: Down 1 Valhalla: Up 1 DE: Down 1 GDA, GR: Up 1 UPN: Down 2 MK: Up 2 Ech, Legion: Down 1 NV, MA, WTF: Up 1 LoSS: Down 3 RIA: Up 2 (Umb: 0) Invicta: Down 2 TORN: Up 1 TCB: Down 1 Vanguard: Up 4 (WAPA: 0) FEAR: Down 2 CON: Down 1 STA: Up 3 OG: Down 2 CD, GATO: Down 1 TSO: New entry Orion: Down 1 Athens: Up 2 (TGE: 0) GLoF: Down 2 OTF: Up 2 (ML: 0) FCO: Down 2 USN: Down 9 Genesis: Down 2 AO: Down 2 BAPS: Down 1 DT: Up 4 (MOON: 0) DF: Up 1 SSSW18: Down 1 CCC: Up 4 (Immortals: 0) Argent: Up 1 Wolfpack: Down 1 ------ (80th place) Blackwater: Down 9 ARES: Down 13 =WE=: Down 3 OV: Down 1 Edit: In case you're confused, entry to the web (and the rankings on this post) are determined by score. However, the alliances are ranked by NS in the OP. Edited February 26, 2009 by Bob Janova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted March 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 Full update. As mentioned last week, Blackwater and ARES have been removed from the web. An honourable mention to the NSO who I'm sure will be making an appearance next week! Congratulations also to Sparta on their third place, and TSO for solidifying their position. Biggest Winner: RDD (â–˛7) Biggest Loser: TGE (â–Ľ6) All movers: +1 Sparta -1 MCXA +3 UPN +1 GR -2 DE -2 GDA +2 WTF (0 MA) -2 NV +1 M*A*S*H -1 LoSS +2 Umbrella -1 NADC -1 RIA +1 TCB +1 NEW -2 TORN +2 STA -1 FEAR +4 TSO -2 CON (0 CD) -2 OG -1 GATO +2 Zenith +7 RDD -1 GLoF (0 OTF) +1 FCO -1 ML -6 TGE (0 USN) -2 VA +1 GUN -1 BAPS +2 CCC (0 SSSW18) +1 Immortals -3 Dark Fist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Obama Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 Great job with this Bob. Thanks for keeping it updated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas Perry Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 Wow, this is very impressive, Bob. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyriq Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 This should be stickied... or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyria Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 This should be stickied... or something. I think that would be rather fitting. It seems to be updated regularly, so why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 I love you Bob Janova. If it was possible, I would offer to have your baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted March 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) Thanks for the support Full update today As predicted, NSO jumped into the fray, pushing out Wolfpack who will no longer be maintained – but I think one of you guys is keeping your treaties up to date anyway, so you will join =WE= and OV on the self-maintained list. UPN had a bad week, and Carpe Diem deserve a mention for their 9 place gain – sorry about Ivan eclipsing you . Jarheads also get a mention for reaching 82nd place, only two away from a web appearance, despite being at war with most of CN. Treaty tensions will all be higher this week because I updated the software and as a result I had to increase the repulsive force factor in order to see what was going on. Biggest Winner: ▲30 (roughly) New Sith Order Biggest Loser: ▼6 United Purple Nations Edit: Also, added a picture to the OP. Because everyone likes a good picture. The core of the web, labelled up with some politically important and/or graphically obvious groupings. The labelling is obviously subjective and my own opinion but I think it is useful nonetheless. Blocs are displayed strongly, bilateral treaties are suppressed (otherwise you just see a sea of lines). All movers: ▲1 MHA ▼1 MCXA ▲1 NpO ▼1 RoK ▲1 TDO ▼1 GPA ▲1 GR, DE, GDA ▲3 Legion (0 MK, Ech) ▼6 UPN ▲1 NATO ▼1 Int ▲1 PC ▼1 TTK ▲9 CD ▼1 TCB, NEW ▲1 WAPA ▼1 Van ▼3 TORN ▲1 TSO ▼2 STA, FEAR ▼1 CON ▲1 GATO ▼1 OG ▲30 NSO ▼1 Orion, Athens ▲4 ML ▼2 Zenith, RDD ▲2 TGE ▼1 FCO ▼4 GLoF, OTF ▼1 USN,VA,Genesis,UCN,AO (0 BAPS) ▼2 GUN ▼1 DT,MOON,CCC,SSSW18,Immortals (0 Argent) ▼2 DF ▼1 WP Edited March 14, 2009 by Bob Janova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sognatore Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 You do such a great job with the web Thanks for putting in all the work! I love it There's a couple treaties missing from GGA so I listed them below. Thanks again! GGA-GDA MADP: Global Kids Ruining the Block Accords TPF-GGA MADP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illustrious Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Thanks for this Bob. By the way, do you have the full 3D MDP Web some place so people can see? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Bob, one worry I have... How long does it take to update? Alliances should be updating the stats and treaties themselves, on the wiki, and you should just be copy-pasting that information from time to time. Otherwise, you will grow tired of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted March 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 The NS update takes around half an hour usually, because I have to re-order the treaty and alliance lists. It can be 5 minutes if no-one moves, or an hour if lots of people do. If I get bored though I can just not do that for a while . Anyone who has the will to help can do an NS update: you just need to copy the in game tables and reorder the alliance and treaty lists appropriately. Creating the compendium takes about a minute because the program does it for me; I just need to run it for long enough for the model to settle to equilibrium. It is helpful if people keep their own treaties updated, not because it takes time for me to do it (I read the AA forum most days anyway) but because I am likely to miss some treaty announcements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanadrin Failing Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Hey, Bob... Would you be able to put a bit on the OP detailing the idea behind the 'Tension'? I know it's not a literal thing, merely a function of who's shacked up with who, but it'd be useful to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Are you doing it top 80 by NS or score? I'd advise against people reading too much in to the tension numbers. Still, they're interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted March 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 It is top 80 score (I just take the first two page of the Display All Alliances in-game). There are some posts on page 1 or 2 which explain the tension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
im317 Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 recently got the updated application and i have to say the black background is good. its still a mess thought. any chance you can make it not display redundant treaties? or do i have to remove those on my own? 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.