DeletedUser
Guest
9/16 Update
Each time, it seems that I present this differently. A way to change things up, maybe. Or just trying to find something that works well to give the present situation. Today, I'll rank the alliances in each of the four categories. The ranking will be slightly different than the grepo rankings because I combine alliances.
A couple of notes:
Probably the biggest thing that stands out to me is ANON Thieves taking 10 enemy cities and losing just one, and Atomic doing the opposite, taking just one enemy city and losing 11. This is three weeks in a row that ANON Thieves have done well, and unlike the last two weeks where they jumped on an inactive, they took cities from several players this week.
Atomic, on the other hand, continue to stagnate. They barely grew overall (0.09% growth doesn't really count as growing), and had a net loss of 4 cities. A big part of this is their loss of 11 cities to the enemy, and they were only able to come up with one in return.
Arcadians really took a beating this week. They had the highest DBP growth rate (although only a middling net DBP), and it came at the cost of 6 cities lost to the enemy (mostly DES, but Atomic also took one).
If I adjust my stats to look at ABP or DBP per capita, Ascension would be really impressive. For a six-member alliance, they're doing well for themselves.
Each time, it seems that I present this differently. A way to change things up, maybe. Or just trying to find something that works well to give the present situation. Today, I'll rank the alliances in each of the four categories. The ranking will be slightly different than the grepo rankings because I combine alliances.
Total Points | Net Points | % change | |
1. Atomic | 15,705,687 | 13,782 | 0.09% |
2. DES | 13,972,901 | 243,593 | 1.77% |
3. SPARTAN | 12,574,185 | 145,381 | 1.17% |
4. ANON Thieves | 10,448,994 | 272,390 | 2.68% |
5. AFC | 10,277,365 | 247,578 | 2.47% |
6. DLI | 8,783,711 | 115,235 | 1.33% |
7. VoR | 8,196,183 | 353,496 | 4.51% |
8. Arcadians | 6,094,189 | 6,415 | 0.11% |
9. League of Destruction | 2,953,506 | 80,503 | 2.80% |
10. Ascension | 2,439,140 | 13,951 | 0.58% |
Average | 9,144,586 | 149,232 | 1.66% |
Total ABP | Net ABP | % change | |
1. Atomic | 5,982,798 | 232,958 | 4.05% |
2. ANON Thieves | 4,424,929 | 99,642 | 2.30% |
3. DES | 3,922,135 | 106,609 | 2.79% |
4. DLI | 3,650,952 | 77,578 | 2.17% |
5. SPARTAN | 3,354,656 | 112,965 | 3.48% |
6. AFC | 2,787,712 | 175,424 | 6.72% |
7. Arcadians | 1,853,620 | 22,300 | 1.22% |
8. VoR | 1,815,956 | 75,588 | 4.34% |
9. League of Destruction | 1,439,204 | 23,656 | 1.67% |
Ascension | 477,826 | 20,914 | 4.58% |
Average | 2,970,979 | 94,763 | 3.29% |
DBP | Net DBP | % change DBP | |
1. DES | 4,203,978 | 128,308 | 3.15% |
2. Atomic | 4,008,974 | 173,950 | 4.54% |
3. AFC | 3,985,055 | 313,401 | 8.54% |
4. DLI | 3,248,042 | 82,480 | 2.61% |
5. ANON Thieves | 3,212,444 | 69,530 | 2.21% |
6. VoR | 2,237,647 | 104,863 | 4.92% |
7. SPARTAN | 1,629,175 | 94,425 | 6.15% |
8. League of Destruction | 1,607,703 | 48,846 | 3.13% |
9. Arcadians | 1,013,434 | 88,372 | 9.55% |
10. Ascension | 516,792 | 15,103 | 3.01% |
Average | 2,566,324 | 111,928 | 4.56% |
Total Cities | Net gained | % gained | |
1. Atomic | 1,574 | -4 | -0.25% |
2. DES | 1,441 | 20 | 1.41% |
3. SPARTAN | 1,248 | 11 | 0.89% |
4. AFC | 1,096 | 17 | 1.58% |
5. ANON Thieves | 1,069 | 21 | 2.00% |
6. DLI | 915 | 12 | 1.33% |
7. VoR | 898 | 43 | 5.03% |
8. Arcadians | 617 | -3 | -0.48% |
9. League of Destruction | 330 | 8 | 2.48% |
10. Ascension | 232 | 3 | 1.31% |
Average | 942 | 13 | 1.38% |
A couple of notes:
- The week that I remove GOA from the top alliances, they lost a lot of cities to top alliances. Sorry, but no recognition for them this week.
- I find it interesting that the these alliances have more DBP than ABP: AFC, DES, VoR, League of Destruction, Ascension. Well, I guess that's half the alliances. The other half has more ABP than DBP. I'm not sure if this goes to show different alliance strategies, or just history. (For example, if you start around weak alliances, you'll run over them and rack up ABP and not have to defend as much. On the other hand, VoR has been on the defensive throughout most of its history.)
- AFC almost gained more DBP this week (313,401) than Ascension has over its history (516,792). Atomic's ABP (232,958 this week, and Ascension has 477,826 in its history) is not quite as impressive, but still remarkable.
- A good part of VoR's growth this week was picking up three new players. And they actually did pretty well on the conquest front, taking three cities and only losing one.
- Alliances that lost no cities to the enemy: AFC (8-0), League of Destruction (2-0), Ascension (2-0)
- Alliances that took no cities from the enemy: Arcadians (0-6)
- For the third straight week, Ascension has taken enemy cities (2 this week) and lost none.
Probably the biggest thing that stands out to me is ANON Thieves taking 10 enemy cities and losing just one, and Atomic doing the opposite, taking just one enemy city and losing 11. This is three weeks in a row that ANON Thieves have done well, and unlike the last two weeks where they jumped on an inactive, they took cities from several players this week.
Atomic, on the other hand, continue to stagnate. They barely grew overall (0.09% growth doesn't really count as growing), and had a net loss of 4 cities. A big part of this is their loss of 11 cities to the enemy, and they were only able to come up with one in return.
Arcadians really took a beating this week. They had the highest DBP growth rate (although only a middling net DBP), and it came at the cost of 6 cities lost to the enemy (mostly DES, but Atomic also took one).
If I adjust my stats to look at ABP or DBP per capita, Ascension would be really impressive. For a six-member alliance, they're doing well for themselves.