DeletedUser
Guest
Excactly.Thats why you use the members of DH as puppets.You guys hardly fight ingame, check your BP out.7th for BP?
Excactly.Thats why you use the members of DH as puppets.You guys hardly fight ingame, check your BP out.7th for BP?
DeletedUser
Guest
You have to consider their size
DeletedUser
Guest
You have to consider their size
Rank 2 in the server, but 7th for BP.
DeletedUser
Guest
It doesn't take into account any that VP earned over the year and half they were an alliance nor does it take into account ML's BP from before we were disbanded for a day. Those stats mean jack. Our conquests on active players speaks for itself.
DeletedUser
Guest
Well, how much BP did Ml have before? Then well add what you have now..You were about rank 3-5 before the merge.
DeletedUser
Guest
*cough* *cough*
DeletedUser8362
Guest
That my friend would be impossible to find. But if my memory serves me anything, we were up with phenomen before our collapse.
DeletedUser
Guest
Considering erics statistic mind, he should know the exact figure.
Lugosi
Strategos
DeletedUser
Guest
Right, im gonna find out myself!!!!
DeletedUser
Guest
Heres a stats fir yi, DS's and phenos combined bp is just 7000000 BP lower than our points
DeletedUser345
Guest
Event Horizon's bp is MLs so 4 million plus Vp which was lower by a long way, about 2 million thats 6 million so still 10 million short of Phenomen...
DeletedUser
Guest
No!Well get a list of Ml members before the merge, count up there BP. then find out were they are on the rankings.
DeletedUser8362
Guest
Too many have quit.
DeletedUser
Guest
Im still gonna do the sum anyway.
DeletedUser
Guest
Now ony including members who were still in Ml before the merge, ive added all thier overall BP and got 6,788,726 i think its wrong but im not double checking.
Lugosi
Strategos
We know MLs bp was inferior yet we are still going over it endlessly it seems?
Wayne; you got the point across
DeletedUser
Guest
Well of course we have less BP than an alliance whom for most of our history has had double the member count. I can not remember the exact figure before the disbanding though it was in the 1.5-2.5 million ball park (these were early days). As for counting up the BPs of members before the merge that's pointless because you are missing out many of our best players whom have quit including some who were in the top page for points (topbomberman/Trophonius).
To get an exact figure is impossible now. But we can just say that ML has a decent amount given it's size throughout it's history. Of course it's less than Phenomen but then, one should expect that. It is also unfair as ML hardly ever receives attacks from Phenomen/DS so we have to be the aggressors giving you more BP.
To get an exact figure is impossible now. But we can just say that ML has a decent amount given it's size throughout it's history. Of course it's less than Phenomen but then, one should expect that. It is also unfair as ML hardly ever receives attacks from Phenomen/DS so we have to be the aggressors giving you more BP.
DeletedUser12662
Guest
A couple months ago, while talking to Valerio, I looked up all the various sets of alliance bp in order to disprove the assertion that Phalanx's attacking ability was the joke everyone always seemed to think. Absolute bp was meaningless, as so many confounding variables (alliance size, position, history) give statistical artifacts. So I used the ratio of offensive/defensive bp, which gives you a general idea of whether an alliance spends most of its wars on the offensive or defensive end. (we had a ratio of 1.463 at the time, which was 8th of the top 15 alliances. Not exactly a mongol horde razing everything in its path, but not something to sneeze at either)
Now this says nothing about skill. A skilled alliance can play defensively, getting a ratio of .3 or .4, while using those gained culture levels to easily absorb ghosts, until the attacker finds himself exhausted, surrounded, and beset by an opponent with full intelligence of his style and capability.
But if you're concerned with bp (which in itself says nothing of skill) this ratio gives you a better idea of whether an alliance should concern you as a potential threat than absolute bp would. At the time of my research, ML had a ratio of 1.735, in 4th. By comparison, Pheno had a ratio of 1.063 and Xmortis had a ratio of .820 in 14th. The only alliance with a lower rank was TeA. Those figures certainly shifted over time, but the shifts wouldn't be major.
So if you contend that ML used other DH as puppets and did not fight in-game themselves, use the map to back your statement. Use border comparison or stats on city turnover. But don't use bp as your metric, as it suggests ML in fact fought disproportionately to their size/position.
Now this says nothing about skill. A skilled alliance can play defensively, getting a ratio of .3 or .4, while using those gained culture levels to easily absorb ghosts, until the attacker finds himself exhausted, surrounded, and beset by an opponent with full intelligence of his style and capability.
But if you're concerned with bp (which in itself says nothing of skill) this ratio gives you a better idea of whether an alliance should concern you as a potential threat than absolute bp would. At the time of my research, ML had a ratio of 1.735, in 4th. By comparison, Pheno had a ratio of 1.063 and Xmortis had a ratio of .820 in 14th. The only alliance with a lower rank was TeA. Those figures certainly shifted over time, but the shifts wouldn't be major.
So if you contend that ML used other DH as puppets and did not fight in-game themselves, use the map to back your statement. Use border comparison or stats on city turnover. But don't use bp as your metric, as it suggests ML in fact fought disproportionately to their size/position.
DeletedUser
Guest
Somebody give this guy a medal. Did the work I didn't have time to do. So ML was 4th in this statistic when they were only ranked 8th in points.
As for city turnover, we also do well in comparison to other alliances and we share a long border with Phen/DS (South/East).