Top 250 nations by alliance, post-Easter Sunday

[Haflinger]

A while back I posted this.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='23 February 2010 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1266932033' post='2198946']
GPA: 27
WTF: 24
Grämlins: 13
FOK: 9
TDO: 8
UPN: 7
MHA: 7
VE: 6
OBR: 5
Umbrella: 5
Sparta: 4
CSN: 4
TOP: 3
TTK: 3
Ragnarok: 3
OG: 3
FCC: 2
Fark: 2
ODN: 2
NpO: 2
GOD: 2
Argent: 2
Kronos: 2
NPO: 1
Brigade: 1
R&R: 1
IRON: 1
FoB: 1
STA: 1
NV: 1
=LOST=: 0
MA: 0
RIA: 0
Vanguard: 0
MK: 0
GR: 0
Athens: 0
NSO: 0

I included all members of Superfriends, C&G, plus former members of Citadel + Frostbite, all sanctioned alliances, and every large alliance with a nation in the top 40.

Maybe we can all salivate at the thought of a GPA-WTF cage match now
[/quote]
So here are the numbers now.

GPA: 30 (+3)
WTF: 24
TDO: 9 (+1)
VE: 8 (+2)
MHA: 8 (+1)
Grämlins: 7 (-6)
FOK: 7 (-2)
Umbrella: 6 (+1)
UPN: 5 (-2)
OBR: 5
TTK: 4 (+1)
OG: 4 (+1)
Fark: 4 (+2)
Sparta: 3 (-1)
Ragnarok: 3
MK: 2 (+2)
GOD: 2
Brigade: 2 (+1)
Argent: 2
TOP: 1 (-2)
NSO: 1 (+1)
NPO: 1
Kronos: 1 (-1)
FoB: 1
CSN: 1 (-3)
[s]Vanguard: 0[/s]
[s]FCC: 0 (-2)[/s]
STA: 0 (-1)
RIA: 0
R&R: 0 (-1)
ODN: 0 (-2)
NpO: 0 (-2)
NV: 0 (-1)
MA: 0
IRON: 0 (-1)
GR: 0
Athens: 0
=LOST=: 0

Here are also some numbers on alliances that weren't in the last post, and prolly should have been.

GLOF: 6
PC: 5
Alpha Omega: 4
Nordreich: 3
TOOL: 2
MCXA: 1
TFD: 1
NEW: 1
NADC: 1
IAA: 1
GOONS: 1
Genesis: 1
DT: 1
TSO: 1
GATO: 0
Legion: 0
FAN: 0
International: 0
LoSS: 0

Methodology was even more random than last time. Not going to get into arguments about it. If you feel your favourite alliance should be statistically represented, post it.

Edit: TBRaiders posted the following data later in this thread.

Green Protection Agency 30
World Task Force 24
The Democratic Order 9
Mostly Harmless Alliance 8
Viridian Entente 7
FOK 7
The Grämlins 7
Umbrella 6
The Grand Lodge Of Freemasons 6
United Purple Nations 5
Poison Clan 5
Ubercon 5
The Order Of The Black Rose 5
Créole 5
Fark 4
The Templar Knights 4
Alpha Omega 4
Old Guard 4
Sparta 3
Ragnarok 3
Nordreich 3
Christian Coalition Of Countries 3
Green Old Party 3
R.O.C.K. 3
FCC 3
The House Of Lords 3
The Ninjas 3
Mushroom Kingdom 2
Nueva Vida 2
Global Order Of Darkness 2
Argent 2
\m/ 2
The Brigade 2
Knights Of Ni! 2
Molon Labe 2
OMFG 2
Bushido 2
The Hanseatic League 2
MFO 2
Nations United For Freedom 2
Blackwater 2
New Pacific Order 1
The Order Of The Paradox 1
Independent Republic Of Orange Nations 1
The Order Of Light 1
Commonwealth Of Sovereign Nations 1
Multicolored Cross-X Alliance 1
The Foreign Division 1
Nusantara Elite Warriors 1
North Atlantic Defense Coalition 1
New Sith Order 1
We Are Perth Army 1
Goon Order Of Oppression Negligence And Sadism 1
IFOK 1
Imperial Assault Alliance 1
Genesis 1
The Resistance 1
Asgaard 1
AGW Overlords 1
The Dark Templar 1
Fellowship Of Elite Allied Republics 1
The Prolific Empire 1
The Sasori Initiative 1
The Circle Of Icarus 1
The Sweet Oblivion 1
Amazon Nation 1
Iunctus 1
Aurora Borealis 1
The Centurion Brotherhood 1
SOS Brigade 1
Federation Of Buccaneers 1
Coalition Of Royal Allied Powers 1
Kronos 1
Republic Of Aquisgrana 1
Alliance Of International Defence 1
Yukon Confederacy 1
Pirates Of The Parrot Order 1
Death Before Dishonor 1
Quantum 1
Gondor 1
Cerberus 1
A Nation 1
FALCON 1
Europa 1
AcTi 1
Krynn 1
AOD Brigade 1
Mushroom Kingdom Applicant 1
Ether 1
Unaligned in the TOP 250 Nations 1

Edited May 12, 2010 by Haflinger

[lonewolfe2015]

We have a top 5% of nations somewhere around here don't we? I'd be more interested in seeing the statistical changes in that, seeing as iirc TOP/Cit nations were dominating that game at one point in time.

[Haflinger]

Top 5% no long matters really, now that everyone with half a clue has an MP.

Top 250 matters - all top 250 nations are in range of all other top 250s.

[jerdge]

Talk of neutral menace...

[Ejayrazz]

The Ninjas have 3

[frosniper13]

OMFG has 2

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='frosniper13' date='09 May 2010 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1273421909' post='2292527']
OMFG has 2
[/quote]
Apparently ninjas and dudes fighting giants aren't good enough for this thread.

[dy Cazaril]

[quote name='jerdge' date='09 May 2010 - 10:29 AM' timestamp='1273418945' post='2292492']
Talk of neutral menace...
[/quote]

Hey, this is what happens when we focus on economic growth rather than blowing ourselves up every couple months.

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='09 May 2010 - 08:18 AM' timestamp='1273418290' post='2292481']
Top 5% no long matters really, now that everyone with half a clue has an MP.[/quote]

Well then, I can think of at least one alliance highlighted in the OP that doesn't have "half a clue."

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='09 May 2010 - 12:21 PM' timestamp='1273422094' post='2292530']
Apparently ninjas and dudes fighting giants aren't good enough for this thread.
[/quote]
They decided to openly ignore small alliances (with the exception of at least three barely breaking a million NS, or even under a million last round) last time around, despite the fact that some of us would fall within the top clumping. The title of the thread is a slight misnomer, it's not "Top 250 nations by alliance" so much as "Top alliances by 250 [top] nations"; as largely evidenced by anybody with a 0 being listed. Whatever floats Haflinger's boat.

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='PhysicsJunky' date='09 May 2010 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1273425539' post='2292565']
They decided to openly ignore small alliances (with the exception of at least three barely breaking a million NS, or even under a million last round) last time around, despite the fact that some of us would fall within the top clumping. The title of the thread is a slight misnomer, it's not "Top 250 nations by alliance" so much as "Top alliances by 250 [top] nations"; as largely evidenced by anybody with a 0 being listed. Whatever floats Haflinger's boat.
[/quote]

Hey, you can be a larger alliance an ignored, Asgaard has 1, not that I really care to see top 250, the top 5% is still a better telling stat of where the heavyweight nations are clumped.

[Lord Brendan]

Stop your whining PJ.

Créole: 5

There.

[tobbogon]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='09 May 2010 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1273421721' post='2292525']
The Ninjas have 3
[/quote]


[quote name='PhysicsJunky' date='09 May 2010 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1273425539' post='2292565']
They decided to openly ignore small alliances (with the exception of at least three barely breaking a million NS, or even under a million last round) last time around, despite the fact that some of us would fall within the top clumping.
[/quote]

Check it: 990k NS. Isn't that close enough to 1m to be involved? :/

[Aeternos Astramora]

I must say, ouch Gre!

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='09 May 2010 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1273426500' post='2292575']
Stop your whining PJ. [/quote]
I'm actually a little ashamed we haven't been able to knock that sixth one sitting on the line over while the rest of you were busy nuking each other.

We're a trivially sized alliance by member count and it makes sense to skip us. Haflinger can go on calling it the Top 250 as well without my objection, but if he's going to start including people based on size rather than top nations he ought to go about it in a less biased sort of way. Unless somebody can make a convincing argument for, to pick on some friends, the FCC to be included but alliances larger and more politically active than them to be excluded. There should really be some stat based criteria, however trivial, or this is just a political thread.

[medicjoe95]

I'd like to see a larger grouping, such as the top 5% (which would be 1250ish), solely because I think it more accurately reflects power... not necessarily because of the ability to go nuclear, but more so because the top 250 is such a small amount. Even the top 2.5% would give a better array. Or even all the nations within war range currently with the top nation.

The idea that I am going off is that in reality the top 250 hardly represents all of the high powered nations. A lot of alliances would have better representation in the top 1000, for instance, that could easily challenge nations with a better representation in the top 250. Good blitz attacks can easily turn an alliance upside down. So, the top 250 hardly gives a comparative example of true eliteness and strength.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='medicjoe95' date='09 May 2010 - 03:13 PM' timestamp='1273432382' post='2292667']
Or even all the nations within war range currently with the top nation.
[/quote]

That's exactly what this list is, actually.

[Banksy]

<Insert comment about rolling GPA>

[frosniper13]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='09 May 2010 - 09:21 AM' timestamp='1273422094' post='2292530']
Apparently ninjas and dudes fighting giants aren't good enough for this thread.
[/quote]
Apparently

I wholeheartedly agree that increasing this list to include the top 5% would be a better method to see which alliances have the most big nations, I also feel that measuring the top 2.5-3% would be much better because the 5% line falls around 67K NS

[flak attack]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' date='09 May 2010 - 01:18 PM' timestamp='1273425463' post='2292563']
Well then, I can think of at least one alliance highlighted in the OP that doesn't have "half a clue."
[/quote]
And as a former member of that alliance's military, I can agree with you.

[Bob Janova]

We have the strongest non-neutral top tier! (WTF are not strict neutrals but they pretty much are.)

[Lennox]

The neutrals shouldn't even count. They are useless, they are stat whores, and they are scared.

[Horatio Longworth]

Thank you for compiling this again. Keep in mind the NPO may have a few more in there when our terms end and we remilitarize.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='PhysicsJunky' date='09 May 2010 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1273425539' post='2292565']
They decided to openly ignore small alliances (with the exception of at least three barely breaking a million NS, or even under a million last round) last time around, despite the fact that some of us would fall within the top clumping. The title of the thread is a slight misnomer, it's not "Top 250 nations by alliance" so much as "Top alliances by 250 [top] nations"; as largely evidenced by anybody with a 0 being listed. Whatever floats Haflinger's boat.
[/quote]
PJ, it's not a "they" it's a "he" - I'm the only person doing this, and it took me enough time as it was without going scrounging through all of the top 250. Thus the invitation to post numbers of other alliances in the thread

Edit: I'd love for this to become a "they" and become comprehensive. I just don't have the time to do it by myself.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Haflinger

[KagetheSecond]

http://www.cybernations.net/allNations_display_alliances.asp?Alliance=OMFG

As previously stated, OMFG has two.