Nordic Nightmare in total Control

[DeletedUser]

Even NathalieV found her own nightmare or was that spymare

 

[DeletedUser]

Hagop, seeing as this server isn't going to close for at least another year or two, I think its a little premature to say NN have won it. Anything can, and probably will, still happen...

Yeah, and the FPS addicts that jump to the next "shiny thing" will be long-gone before that, SH.

ro:

 

[DeletedUser]

Athens has reached an interesting point, the dominance of NN is being challenged:

NN have the stronger individual members, but my own alliance Masters Of Rogue Chaos have more cities and are growing faster. Both alliances cities are of similar average size, so military potential of both alliances is similar. A two horse race, at least ! I'd expect further merger activity amongst the other alliances behind the top two.

 

[DeletedUser]

Athens has reached an interesting point, the dominance of NN is being challanged:

NN have the stronger individual members, but my own alliance Masters Of Rogue Chaos have more cities and are growing faster. A two horse race, at least ! I'd expect further merger activity amongst the other alliances behind the top two.

To call MoRC a challenger is a joke. Yeah, a mass recruiting alliance who has to have double the number of members to have the same score.. Oh, and why don't we look at the BP rankings?

Attackers..

Spoiler

Defenders..

Spoiler

Overall..

Spoiler

So, err.. a challenger? Yeah, not likely.

 

[DeletedUser]

To call MoRC a challenger is a joke. Yeah, a mass recruiting alliance who has to have double the number of members to have the same score.. Oh, and why don't we look at the BP rankings?

MoRC are beating NN in conquests of each others cities by 13 to 8...
Not really what you'd expect from an MRA !

You are making the classic mistake of confusing a large alliance of strong coordinated players (MoRC), with an MRA which is a large alliance of weak uncoordinated players ! MoRC have the 2nd highest average points per member in Athens so your opinion has no foundation.

I'm sure you'll reject this, but lets revisit the conquest statistics in future and see the facts of the matter, rather than unfounded opinions.

 

[DeletedUser]

Corinthian, you clearly haven't been keeping up !

MoRC are beating NN in conquests of each others cities by 13 to 8...
Not really what you'd expect from an MRA !

You are making the classic mistake of confusing a large alliance of strong coordinated players (MoRC), with an MRA which is a large alliance of weak uncoordinated players ! MoRC have the 2nd highest average points per member in Athens so your opinion has no foundation.

I'm sure you'll reject this, but lets revisit the conquest statistics in future and see the facts of the matter, rather than unfounded opinions.

How about we think about this logically? MoRC has double the number of members that NN does, so that 13 to 8.. that should be 16 to 8, no? So if it's so fantastic that your alliance is making more conquests than NN, why are you not getting even more? Don't use incorrect maths to try to prove an incorrect point, please.


Edit:
Oh, and with the whole "conquests of each other" bit.. it sounds like you think MoRC are the only ones we're fighting..

 

[DeletedUser]

Don't use incorrect maths to try to prove an incorrect point, please.

You have a curious interpretation of 'incorrect maths' ! You want to judge the number of conquests in proportion to number of members ? If that were sensible then a one-man alliance who conquered one city would be top of your list ! This is nonsense.

Conquest frequency is much more closely related to the number of conquering cities, than it is to the number of conquering players.

So, mathematically 'correct' measures might be:
1. just the total conquests (the absolute measure), or
2. conquests per conquering-cities (the relative measure)

Most studies of war outcomes use the absolute measure ! But I'm also interested in the relative measure based on number of cities engaged in the war, and on this measure the two alliances are closely matched.

 

[DeletedUser]

some people don't know what's the difference between an MRA and an alliance with lots of members

 

[DeletedUser]

So... Does this Nordic Nightmare have anything to do with Robert Helenius? "The Nordic Nightmare"?

 

[DeletedUser]

I do agree, its not challenging NN when all they do is bolster there numbers with terrible Ex SotO members that failed when they where the number 3 alliance.

 

[DeletedUser]

says the guy having twice as less BP than growth points. ok, i took my time to prove you wrong here in public and to show everyone how much your alliance fails because you can't deal with facts as it's representative. let's take last 7 days into consideration and exclude all inner alliance conquests (and academies) and conquering non alliance players

imperium lost 9 cities and gained 9 cities
ex soto(now a part of morc. was there a merge or something?) gained 49(this was hard to count, sorry if i missed one or two) and lost 6


so imperium's total gain towards other alliances in the last 7 days is 0 while morc's is 43 (and i've seen ex-soto members taking lots of cities in there on grepostats)

now these are grepostats colonization winners and losers for the last 7 days (this includes all conquests even inner ones). i will only compare imperium and morc

imperium conquered 26 cities and lost 20. 6 cities plus for 2 million alliance (3 per million)
morc conquered 142 cities and lost 41 city. 101 cities plus for 12 million alliance (8.5 per million)


numbers don't lie dude, but you have

 

[DeletedUser]

The war with SotO ended days ago and been honouring our NAP with MoRC.
Ill look over the numbers you have posted to see how accurate they are.

Also I wonder where I lied? SotO lost and got acquired or merged either or.
Quote me exactly would be alot better instead of accusations.

Oh I see where your getting your numbers. Your just using blanket Alliance names and tracking it off that.

So you can tract exactly what SotO members went to MoRC? then use that with the total take overs and losses while filtering out all of MoRC's stuff? Man, you have far too much time far far too much time. Well assuming you actually went through those steps.

 

[DeletedUser]

at least i've proven myself right and proven how imperium is doing

 

[DeletedUser]

Fact:

Nordic Nightmares do not need to prove we are the best because we do it on the battlefield every day, No amount of stats is going to change the facts.

 

[DeletedUser]

Although while there's a discussion about statistics, how the hell is NmE still in the top 10 for alliance attackers/defenders/fighters?!

 

[DeletedUser]

Um sadly cornith you didnt. Your using number of people as an alliance. Not including alliance hoping.

 

[DeletedUser]

Um sadly cornith you didnt. Your using number of people as an alliance. Not including alliance hoping.

...eh?

 

[DeletedUser22708]

To call MoRC a challenger is a joke. Yeah, a mass recruiting alliance who has to have double the number of members to have the same score.. Oh, and why don't we look at the BP rankings?

Attackers..

Spoiler

Defenders..

Spoiler

Overall..

Spoiler

So, err.. a challenger? Yeah, not likely.

Use your brain and add the bp from the other 2 alliances, MorC 2 & 3 to the main alliance.

Fact: NN can't handle that they're not first in the rankings anymore, you guys look like you need a tissue.

And btw, only reason you guys have quite nice ABP is because you attack alliances half the size of yours.

 

[DeletedUser]

Use your brain and add the bp from the other 2 alliances, MorC 2 & 3 to the main alliance.

Your first point is just making your own alliance look worse.. even combining the BP of all three MoRC alliances, you still don't have as much as NN does...

Nordic Nightmares ABP: 4093120.
Combined ABP of all three MoRC alliances: 2515380.

Nordic Nightmares DBP: 2974683.
Combined DBP of all three MoRC alliances: 2341928.

Nordic Nightmares total BP: 7067803.
Total combined BP of all three MoRC alliances: 4664377.

Fact: NN can't handle that they're not first in the rankings anymore, you guys look like you need a tissue.

Need a tissue? Not sure where anyone has been crying.. NN has been doing to same thing it's been doing every other day of Athens, dominating the leaderboards. Just because MoRC managed to match NN's score by mass-recruiting and taking in the embarrassing remains of SOTO, you still have a long way to go until you can even claim to match the strength of NN members.

And btw, only reason you guys have quite nice ABP is because you attack alliances half the size of yours.

As for NN fighting alliances half their size, not quite sure where you're getting at with that.. we're fighting everyone, and have been since the start. Plus, you say it like there's a choice in the matter. I don't know whether you've looked at the alliance rankings recently, but there is only one other alliance matching NN's score, that is your own. The rest are more than 3-4 times smaller.. it's not a choice to fight alliances smaller than us, it's a necessity.

Any other stupid claims to make? Perhaps you'd like to actually back up your arguments with some evidence, next time.. At least Leonidas Agiad was able to make some good posts in support of his own alliance. You, on the other hand, are doing them no favours by embarrassing yourself.





Edit:

Oh, and, "you guys look like you need a tissue"? What is this, highschool all over again? Grow up, Digital.

 

[DeletedUser22708]

Just because MoRC managed to match NN's score by mass-recruiting and taking in the embarrassing remains of SOTO, you still have a long way to go until you can even claim to match the strength of NN members.

Embarrassing remains from SOTO. Excuse me? Please explain yourself.