Hyperion321 Posted September 2, 2010 Report Share Posted September 2, 2010 [quote name='CoffeeshopFrank' timestamp='1283457240' post='2439418'] Biased polls are biased. You should make it so that all of the mentioned alliances are in both polls. [/quote] But that would make it impossible for people to vote for anyone except who he wants you to vote for. Blasphemy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 Having the likes of TOP, FAN, Gremlins and others on the worst alliance list would be a joke though. As would having many of the worst ones on the top list. I guess some sort of nomination system would be a good way but I don't put any stock in OWF polls anyway. People just spam in favour of their alliance and/or their allies rather than actually vote honestly. A discussion/debate is a bit better because if someone posts something retarded you can at least call them out on it. Also, I echo the thoughts of Bigwoody and SteveBiscuits. Everyone has pretty much sussed out the war system by now. The only real differences in skill these days are down to who is prepared to spend more time refreshing their nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 [quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1283436836' post='2439128'] I am surprised to see so few votes on Monos Archein tbh. In my opinion they're clearly the weakest link in SuperFriends. [/quote] They're TOO irrelevant. [quote name='CoffeeshopFrank' timestamp='1283457240' post='2439418'] Biased polls are biased. You should make it so that all of the mentioned alliances are in both polls. [/quote] No. The best fighters shouldn't be up for the worst. It's stupid and you must include 10 awesome and 10 !@#$%*. You would just be limiting the pool of alliances to choose from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 [quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283442838' post='2439191'] Are you sure ? I get that 4 million tech is a lot, but facing the odds that they did I'm sure they would have eventually surrendered but the war would have lasted maybe twice as long if not longer---or the latter, they would have won. Hell of a different world, if they had won... [/quote] They would not have been facing long odds if they had had 4 million tech. Jesus. They had about 650 nations. If they had had 4 million tech, they would have had an average tech of a little over 6K. Over 600 nations where the mean tech is around 6K? Yeah there isn't an army capable of stopping such a force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logos Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 [quote name='CoffeeshopFrank' timestamp='1283457240' post='2439418'] Biased polls are biased. You should make it so that all of the mentioned alliances are in both polls. [/quote] QFT and everyone else is crazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1283480224' post='2439761'] They would not have been facing long odds if they had had 4 million tech. Jesus. They had about 650 nations. If they had had 4 million tech, they would have had an average tech of a little over 6K. Over 600 nations where the mean tech is around 6K? Yeah there isn't an army capable of stopping such a force. [/quote] I dunno, TOP in it's prime... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingEd Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 [quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1283481767' post='2439792'] I dunno, TOP in it's prime... [/quote] Ok we get it, TOP in its prime was uber scary and had epic stats. I still wants LM's tech level Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 [quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1283481767' post='2439792'] I dunno, TOP in it's prime... [/quote] TOP in its prime had a mean tech around that level, and about a third as many nations. Doesn't take rocket science to figure out that the alliance getting tripleteamed is losing to the other one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Obama Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1283488404' post='2439920'] TOP in its prime had a mean tech around that level, and about a third as many nations. Doesn't take rocket science to figure out that the alliance getting tripleteamed is losing to the other one [/quote] Tripleteamed at the top? I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1283480224' post='2439761'] They would not have been facing long odds if they had had 4 million tech. Jesus. They had about 650 nations. If they had had 4 million tech, they would have had an average tech of a little over 6K. Over 600 nations where the mean tech is around 6K? Yeah there isn't an army capable of stopping such a force. [/quote] They started the war with about 940 actually Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1283488404' post='2439920'] TOP in its prime had a mean tech around that level, and about a third as many nations. Doesn't take rocket science to figure out that the alliance getting tripleteamed is losing to the other one [/quote] You're forgetting TOP's "legendariness" factor which apparently overcomes any statistical disadvantage. I wasn't being serious by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 [quote name='Aeternos Astramora' timestamp='1283480156' post='2439759'] They're TOO irrelevant. No. The best fighters shouldn't be up for the worst. It's stupid and you must include 10 awesome and 10 !@#$%*. You would just be limiting the pool of alliances to choose from. [/quote] But if the choices of "best" and the "!@#$" alliances are determined by the poll maker, then that would suggest that the poll is biased...which it is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus Pullo Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1283488404' post='2439920'] TOP in its prime had a mean tech around that level, and about a third as many nations. Doesn't take rocket science to figure out that the alliance getting tripleteamed is losing to the other one [/quote] It doesn't take rocket science simply because this is neither a rocket nor science. Indeed, it would take probability and statistics to determine that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalasin Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 [quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1283489217' post='2439932'] You're forgetting TOP's "legendariness" factor which apparently overcomes any statistical disadvantage. I wasn't being serious by the way. [/quote] What, you mean their legendary failure to fight in losing wars, ever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 [quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1283488623' post='2439926'] They started the war with about 940 actually [/quote] Wellllll... there were a decent number of smaller ghosts on the AA. Losing wars does wonders for ghostbusting those guys [quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1283489217' post='2439932'] You're forgetting TOP's "legendariness" factor which apparently overcomes any statistical disadvantage. I wasn't being serious by the way. [/quote] lol Yeah fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus Pullo Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 [quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1283516752' post='2440314'] What, you mean their legendary failure to fight in losing wars, ever? [/quote] More like their legendary ability to support their allies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 [quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1283494799' post='2440070'] But if the choices of "best" and the "!@#$" alliances are determined by the poll maker, then that would suggest that the poll is biased...which it is [/quote] Yes, but even a biased poll with 20 options for each should at least include the top 3 unless the pollster really sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus Pullo Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 [quote name='Aeternos Astramora' timestamp='1283530032' post='2440459'] Yes, but even a biased poll with 20 options for each should at least include the top 3 unless the pollster really sucks. [/quote] [sarcasm]Dude, you obviously don't know nothing. On the other hand, this poll was made by "someone who actually knows things".[/sarcasm] 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.