Tarikmo Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Poseidon isn't purple, you are just color blind. Good sir, for this most atrocious insult, I hereby decree an official "No u". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Good sir, for this most atrocious insult, I hereby decree an official "No u". One out of four males are color blind. I just figured since I'm not, Kiss Goodbye isn't and Eden Taylor isn't. You must be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 I can't say this with certainty, but I'm thinking you must have made a typo and switched the numbers I bolded. That the number of nations over 60k dropped while numbers over 3k tech grew seems unlikely.I don't really understand why you wouldn't count Poseidon, though. According to the last installment Citadel was at 300 nations larger than 60k: Nations over 60k NSCitadel: (273) 300 SF: (116) 141 CnG: (90) 102 FB: (88) 101 Poseidon: (62) 82 Can I confirm that when it says "over" it really means that as opposed to a bin that runs from the point listed to the next bin. I.e., The "over 60k NS" category also includes all the nations in the "over 80" category? Also, thanks for compiling these and such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted December 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 I can't say this with certainty, but I'm thinking you must have made a typo and switched the numbers I bolded. That the number of nations over 60k dropped while numbers over 3k tech grew seems unlikely.I don't really understand why you wouldn't count Poseidon, though. It's not a typo. Some background: I was making this thread two weeks ago and scrapped it because I couldn't explain the drop and it seemed weird. I decided to do it live make it today and the oddness remained; the error is probably in the figure from two months ago. Again, Poseidon doesn't seem like a very united bloc right now, so I lost interest in tracking them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 It's not a typo. Some background: I was making this thread two weeks ago and scrapped it because I couldn't explain the drop and it seemed weird. I decided to do it live make it today and the oddness remained; the error is probably in the figure from two months ago. Again, Poseidon doesn't seem like a very united bloc right now, so I lost interest in tracking them. Poseidon doesn't seem united? I would like to contradict that statement considering some recent event, but I wouldn't want to offend any bloc. I'll keep it simple Poseidon is as stable as one of the four blocs you have up there and should be considered as a bloc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarikmo Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 One out of four males are color blind. I just figured since I'm not, Kiss Goodbye isn't and Eden Taylor isn't. You must be. I dislike you, you and your red text! Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go get my eye's checked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 I dislike you, you and your red text! Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go get my eye's checked. I like you! At least you keep a good sense of humor. (Off Subject, we know) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarikmo Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 (edited) I like you! At least you keep a good sense of humor. (Off Subject, we know) I you too! (Ok, let's get back on topic now ) edit: good night! Edited December 6, 2009 by Tarikmo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiss Goodbye Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 (edited) It's not a typo. Some background: I was making this thread two weeks ago and scrapped it because I couldn't explain the drop and it seemed weird. I decided to do it live make it today and the oddness remained; the error is probably in the figure from two months ago. That would make somewhat more sense. Edited December 6, 2009 by Kiss Goodbye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unsure Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Can I confirm that when it says "over" it really means that as opposed to a bin that runs from the point listed to the next bin. I.e., The "over 60k NS" category also includes all the nations in the "over 80" category? If it didn't, Citadel would have more nations over 60k than they have of nations period, per UE's stats thread. So yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 If it didn't, Citadel would have more nations over 60k than they have of nations period, per UE's stats thread.So yeah. I prefer to have things spoon-fed to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 We're starting to capsize! Abandon ship! Abandon Ship! Flee for your lives! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistledown Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Berith! Also nice job on this, it seems that soon the balance of power will be evened out if this continues. Most likely though, Citadel is reaching is maxing out it's capabilities. It can't buy as much tech as any of the other blocs because of fewer nations, but good planning is what's keeping them up. The same with NS wise, bigger gains for the Blocs with more nations to pass the limit. I have my doubts about this. If you look at the raw numbers instead of percentages, Citadel is still gaining in total number or running about even with the rest of the blocs. It's just that the percentages are lower because for the top stats, Citadel would have to gain about seven nations for each one the lower blocs gain, and about one for every three in the lower stats. It's not a problem with topping out on high NS from where I see things, but rather the way the numbers are presented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Whelp, this is motivating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 (edited) I have my doubts about this. If you look at the raw numbers instead of percentages, Citadel is still gaining in total number or running about even with the rest of the blocs. It's just that the percentages are lower because for the top stats, Citadel would have to gain about seven nations for each one the lower blocs gain, and about one for every three in the lower stats. It's not a problem with topping out on high NS from where I see things, but rather the way the numbers are presented. Thanks for pointing out the obvious? Anyhow I'd rather increase at an exponential growth of twenty-five rather than twelve. Just saying. Edited December 6, 2009 by Tick1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted December 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 I have my doubts about this. If you look at the raw numbers instead of percentages, Citadel is still gaining in total number or running about even with the rest of the blocs. It's just that the percentages are lower because for the top stats, Citadel would have to gain about seven nations for each one the lower blocs gain, and about one for every three in the lower stats. It's not a problem with topping out on high NS from where I see things, but rather the way the numbers are presented. Did you forget already that the data is misrepresented in a nefarious attempt to downplay Citadel's strength? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Did you forget already that the data is misrepresented in a nefarious attempt to downplay Citadel's strength? I don't think you are that clever Essenia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistledown Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Thanks for pointing out the obvious? I was responding to the post I quoted. Did you forget already that the data is misrepresented in a nefarious attempt to downplay Citadel's strength? My mistake. I'll remember how evil you are in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Jaym Il Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 At least I am contributing to a category this time around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiss Goodbye Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 (edited) Berith! Also nice job on this, it seems that soon the balance of power will be evened out if this continues. Most likely though, Citadel is reaching is maxing out it's capabilities. It can't buy as much tech as any of the other blocs because of fewer nations, but good planning is what's keeping them up. The same with NS wise, bigger gains for the Blocs with more nations to pass the limit. One need look no farther than this page to determine how everyone is doing with tech buying. Edited December 6, 2009 by Kiss Goodbye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROMMELHSQ Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 One need look no farther than this page to determine how everyone is doing with tech buying. But this includes the tech from nations joining the alliances' blocs, so its not a real indicator on the tech buying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiss Goodbye Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 But this includes the tech from nations joining the alliances' blocs, so its not a real indicator on the tech buying. That is true. I suppose you'd have to monitor aid slot usage directly to measure tech buying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Again, Poseidon doesn't seem like a very united bloc right now, so I lost interest in tracking them. Of course you did. Its in the heading because of your total lack of interest. Its clearly meant in an antagonistic way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 But seriously, seeing as how they got there by not fighting wars and with Citadel facing such obvious future opposition from the greater Planet Bob is it any wonder that so many are jumping ship? Are you really that stupid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dan Posted December 6, 2009 Report Share Posted December 6, 2009 Are you really that stupid? He was commenting on Branimir's post, HA. Epik, come back . Thanks Essenia. 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.