Top 12 Sink or Swim+Discussion

Zarun

Phrourach
Hahaha. I sense a challenge then. :)

And to get serious about the last few posts, BP dumping is a strategy many have used to get ahead in the game. I seem to recall many of your own teammates doing it in the past. And taking all those small ghosts is a tremendous help to the alliance.

It takes hard work - a different kind of hard work than conquering enemy cities. But perhaps even more admirable considering it's something most don't want to bother with.

I'm not for or against the strategy. Viv has proven at least two servers now that it works extremely well.

Ultimately it's up to Inno whether to allow this or not and players shouldn't be faulted for using a viable and in-game-legal strategy - especially if it works so efficiently.
 

dimspace

Phrourach
Hahaha. I sense a challenge then. :)

And to get serious about the last few posts, BP dumping is a strategy many have used to get ahead in the game. I seem to recall many of your own teammates doing it in the past. And taking all those small ghosts is a tremendous help to the alliance.

It takes hard work - a different kind of hard work than conquering enemy cities. But perhaps even more admirable considering it's something most don't want to bother with.
The point is, youve spent the last two days harping on about how QOQ are the best fighters on the server and in that time weve established.

+Your takes come mostly from barries diplomats and other alliances
+Your own record is appalling, ive taken more enemy cities in a week than youve managed in 3 months (five month server less your 60 days vm)
+Your founder pretty much just conquers 1k ghosts
+What cities you do get from top alliances outside of en appear to be swaps with namechangers, or you threaten bloods and say we are taking these cities (as per ranirup)
+ you harp on that your stats are effected because there arent any top alliances near you. Well you made the choice to be in 65, and if you really were "fighters" you might try fighting your neighbours bloods and namechangers and moving into their oceans.. it is a wargame after all

All of this while saying "oh but en have twice the number of players"

You could divide en's conquers from top alliances by FOUR and its still higher than Qoq's
 

yuchen

Phrourach
I don't post on the externals but I can't miss the chance to get this in. :D

I will give it to you Dim, EN have taken the most cities from top 12 alliances in this world. But now you guys have started fighting us, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th? alliance, in terms of the number of conquests from top 12s (I don't have time to count number of conquests) and the problem is, in the words of one your own players, we can take cities easily from you and you can't take any from us!

So much for all that conquering eh?

and...back to lurking.
 

dimspace

Phrourach
I don't post on the externals but I can't miss the chance to get this in. :D

I will give it to you Dim, EN have taken the most cities from top 12 alliances in this world. But now you guys have started fighting us, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th?
I would stick to lurking. This makes no sense. What do you even mean? the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th?

trouble is, qoq are mainly and primarily in 65. Nobody is interested in going to 65. Its like you are all sitting over there waving frantically for attention and dont realise the party is in the core.

Ive avoided calling you a rim alliance up to now
 
Last edited:

Canby

Guest
Most large alliances can populate both the rim and the core in grepo now. You dont need to expand more than 2 oceans to play in both here as its only 4 oceans from rim to opposite rim.
Its just the way things are with far fewer players joining servers than previous years. No more starting in O11 :D
 

Zarun

Phrourach
Talk talk all you want, we know who's winning on the battlefield.

We have widened our BP lead by tens of millions of points, our average points keep running away from everyone else, and we outrank alliances that have more players than us.

While the only victories you claim are your delusional posts, your stone hailed cities, and some isolated conquers.

Edit: As for me, perhaps if I'd been more selfish and didn't have close to 100 cities given away to mates I'd be doing better. But I don't play like that.
 
Last edited:

Canby

Guest
+Your takes come mostly from barries diplomats and other alliances
Lol again another spot on assessment from Dimmy, oh such insight from this one :p

+Your founder pretty much just conquers 1k ghosts
Im looking at QoQs founder's grepostats..... Im confused, he hasnt taken hardly any 1K ghosts? You check your 'facts' before posting on here or is that a silly question?

+What cities you do get from top alliances outside of en appear to be swaps with namechangers, or you threaten bloods and say we are taking these cities (as per ranirup)
No point, EN are the main competition and leak cities so easily. Thats the perfect opponent to focus on, no?

+ you harp on that your stats are effected because there arent any top alliances near you. Well you made the choice to be in 65, and if you really were "fighters" you might try fighting your neighbours bloods and namechangers and moving into their oceans.. it is a wargame after all
Your stats are rubbish Dim, complete bias, I work at a science department in a university, sometimes I have to help out with student experiments and stats analysis on their data.

Its like if somebody came proposing an experiment where you compared how many fish a community of birds ate (who lived next to the ocean) and then compared to to how many fish another community of birds (who lived in forest 100 miles inland) ate.
There is no point even setting up an experiment not to mention analyzing that data to try and draw up a useful conclusion from it. Primary school children can tell you the answer, its flawed from the get go.
You know the results already and those provide no insight into the differences between the 2 communities of birds other than one lives next to the ocean and the other does not.

Please Dimmy, this is basic basic stuff. Either you include all takes or non at all. You start chopping and choosing which bits of data to include and subtract well thats dodgy pharmaceutical company type tactics. The ones who withhold half the data from their drug trails so to try and show that their drug treatments work.

You could divide en's conquers from top alliances by FOUR and its still higher than Qoq's
I dont know about anybody else but I wouldnt call alliances who didnt make it past a few weeks into a server as top alliances. I would call them irrelevant as a dead alliances cannot affect the end result.
And yeah as I said before I could cherry pick a whole new list of who I considered 'top alliances' and make QoQ look like the best alliance that has ever existed.

But im not going to do that because that would be intentionally misleading.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ranga1

Strategos
And yeah as I said before I could cherry pick a whole new list of who I considered 'top alliances' and make QoQ look like the best alliance that has ever existed.

But im not going to do that because that would be intentionally misleading.
as an interested bystander I'd like to see what that list would look like
 

Ranga1

Strategos
oh oo Queen Sandeep is back trying to show us she has an imagination. I didnt know noobs werent allowed an opinion, when did that happen? Did that happen when it became acceptable practice to fabricate BP? I must be gettind old
 

Canby

Guest
as an interested bystander I'd like to see what that list would look like
Its easy, everybody can try this and your stats will look great compared to any other alliance.

Pick some alliances that are/were in your ocean or adjacent oceans. Count up all your takes and then compare that to how many an alliance 2 oceans away has taken.
Success! you have now proven that you are much better than your opposition.

3+ Oceans away even better
Here is an example

QoQ vs Barrie's Diplomats = 63 taken
En, E-N, Hounddogs vs Barrie's Diplomats = 0 taken

Wow look how great QoQ are, they are taking over 63 times the cities their main opposition is taking. This is unheard of in grepo right?
EN on the other hand, what a failure. Even with the might of 3 alliances behind them the failed to take a single city from a top alliance.
They should have moved to O66 to avoid this kind of embarrassment right? :D

You can then start adding more alliances in that EN are noway near and havent fought. Doesnt matter if they only lasted the first 6 weeks of the server, if you took cities from them its cool to use when comparing takes to alliances 2 oceans away!
Then you start racking up 100s and 100s of takes for QoQ and zero for EN.

Of course its totally misleading not to mention a completely ridiculous and illogical way to assess who is doing better.
But thats Dimspace
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dimspace

Phrourach
Its easy, everybody can try this and your stats will look great compared to any other alliance.

Pick some alliances that are/were in your ocean or adjacent oceans. Count up all your takes and then compare that to how many an alliance 2 oceans away has taken.
Success! you have now proven that you are much better than your opposition.

3+ Oceans away even better
Here is an example

QoQ vs Barrie's Diplomats = 63 taken
En, E-N, Hounddogs vs Barrie's Diplomats = 0 taken

Wow look how great QoQ are, they are taking over 63 times the cities their main opposition is taking.
Except the example you are citing, Barries diplomats were never at any point in the game a top ten or twelve alliance.

That would be like saying that Chester City were better than MAnchester Utd because Chester scored 3 goals against Macclesfield Town, while Manchester United only scored 1 goal against West Ham.

When producing statistics you have two choices, you can either use partial but relevant statistics or you can include all statistics.

To be honest, I have better things to do with my life than to put EVERY SINGLE en or qoq conquer into a list, so in my statistical analysis I went for brevity.

So how did I select the criteria.

Its widely considered that taking a city from a top ranked alliance is considerable more difficult than taking a city from a smaller alliance, I therefore, chose, that for the purpose of my analysis I would compare conquers between alliances that at the time were in the top 12 alliances on the server.

The fact that Average Joes are no longer in existance is utterly beside the point. At the time of conquer, which is the criteria we are analysing, at the time of conquer, they were in the top 12 alliances.

Straight conquers is a pointless statistic, you may as well just compare total cities. Because just listing conquers without context does not show the relative strength of the opponent.





Youre previous thing about fish and birds is just stupid. You are trying to compare geographic analysis with statistical analysis that has known measurable factors. We do not have any way of measuring the defensive values of the fish, or the strength of the birds so its purely and area based sample with no measurable point of reference. With the example of alliance conquers we do have measurable points of reference. We know the strength of the alliance being conquered./
 

Canby

Guest
.
When producing statistics you have two choices, you can either use partial but relevant statistics or you can include all statistics.
Complete rubbish, that's cherry picking because what you consider not relevant is relevant to another person. That is not objective in the slightest.
The moment you start throwing out bits of your choosing is when you start fiddling with the results.

.
Its widely considered that taking a city from a top ranked alliance is considerable more difficult than taking a city from a smaller alliance, I therefore, chose, that for the purpose of my analysis I would compare conquers between alliances that at the time were in the top 12 alliances on the server.
The fact that Average Joes are no longer in existance is utterly beside the point. At the time of conquer, which is the criteria we are analysing, at the time of conquer, they were in the top 12 alliances.
This makes no sense either, how did you come to the conclusion that using a top 12 list from four months ago is the best way of assessing the situation now? Is it because if you compared takes using the alliances in the top 12 now your figures wouldn't look as convincing?
I honestly dont know, but I have a feeling they might.

.
Youre previous thing about fish and birds is just stupid. You are trying to compare geographic analysis with statistical analysis that has known measurable factors. We do not have any way of measuring the defensive values of the fish, or the strength of the birds so its purely and area based sample with no measurable point of reference. With the example of alliance conquers we do have measurable points of reference. We know the strength of the alliance being conquered./

Lol, do you know what an analogy is? That whole paragraph was just pure waffle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

IRGR8RU

Phrourach
Do not reply much and I appreciate all the insightful viewpoints all of you have. Yes, I am a member of EN and yes I joined them to see how they played. I haven't seen anything within the alliance that I haven't seen elsewhere. I disagree with certain posts made in this forum but to each his/her own opinion. One thing I do know about EN is their use of Skype is amazing and very educational to me. As for who will or who has done what, the world map shows it all. Like in other worlds, EN is the center and has alliances hitting from all sides. In my opinion this is how the game was made to be played. I respect QoQ for their play coming from rim to center and their tactics of conquering islands is truly admirable. I stay away from topics like botting and sending def troops with transports to get BP because if that's how you play and have fun, who am I to judge. I haven't seen anything written that says you can't so not much you can ask the Mods to do. As for WW, I have been on both sides and have been outnumbered in a world in which the alliance I was in won. Makes no difference who accuses who of what in the end, the alliance that fills the 4th wonder first will win and whoever fills the 7th will get the crown. Just my 2 cents... Looking forward to some sleepless nights when WW begins.
 

Canby

Guest
Do not reply much and I appreciate all the insightful viewpoints all of you have. Yes, I am a member of EN and yes I joined them to see how they played. I haven't seen anything within the alliance that I haven't seen elsewhere. I disagree with certain posts made in this forum but to each his/her own opinion. One thing I do know about EN is their use of Skype is amazing and very educational to me. As for who will or who has done what, the world map shows it all. Like in other worlds, EN is the center and has alliances hitting from all sides. In my opinion this is how the game was made to be played. I respect QoQ for their play coming from rim to center and their tactics of conquering islands is truly admirable. I stay away from topics like botting and sending def troops with transports to get BP because if that's how you play and have fun, who am I to judge. I haven't seen anything written that says you can't so not much you can ask the Mods to do. As for WW, I have been on both sides and have been outnumbered in a world in which the alliance I was in won. Makes no difference who accuses who of what in the end, the alliance that fills the 4th wonder first will win and whoever fills the 7th will get the crown. Just my 2 cents... Looking forward to some sleepless nights when WW begins.
Good post I +Repd also
Agree with most especially the highlighted part as at the end of the day thats what its all going to come down to. No amount of excuses, finger pointing or propaganda will change the end result (whatever that result turns out to be).

Anyway good to have an objective view on it all rather than the attention seeking troll posts we get most days.