Winners and Losers

[DeletedUser]

This is cheap mathematics, which makes me wonder what they teach in school these days. Lumping for instance Redwoods into a group that is 50% smaller and then do a straight percentage doesn't work. The same happens with Black Legion and Venom. What you have to use is a weighted average. For instance in pool B you have to add all the points in the pool and get a number ... then you do a percentage of that collective number compared to each individual part and then compare it to the next week total % to come up with a proper % increase .... the straight up percentage doesn't work because 1% increase by Redwoods is a much larger number than 1% of Villany ... so on this point this entire exercise is pointless and only used to make a point that is more propaganda than anything else.

If the numbers are corrected to my suggestion then I will say it is fair but until then this thread is pointless.

If I could give you more rep i would! It might have been a bit offensive but i agree. I am a senior in high school so it is all still fresh so I agree and understand what you're saying.

 

[DeletedUser14786]

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics! Great work bringing the forum alive, +rep from me.

edit: need to +rep somebody else first...

 

[DeletedUser]

Per member seems like the fairest thing to do in my opinion, can't wait to see the results for next week!

Also I think your math is pretty good! What maccat suggested seems a little too time consuming for some fun on the forums, no offense intended. It is perfectly reasonable what you suggested, its just, come on ro:

What I'm suggesting is that to have any value as tool on how well an alliance is doing is you have to do the math correct. Yes what was done is a lot of work but if it comes to the wrong conclusion and paints a false picture what is the point of the exercise? The only way you can make this work is through a weighted average, which takes no more time than what was done and that is why I was suspicious of the motivations. Unfortunately, and this is where I actually get picky, you can never really do this right as the distribution of DBP creates a Simpson's Paradox which punishes an attacking alliance which goes against the nature of the game ... now that takes work to fix you may never get the right numbers. Another Simpson's Paradox is ocean density as Ocean 45 has many more cities then lets say Ocean 66 which is the result of the beginning stages of a world where many players are concentrated in the core. Yes this can open the debate Core vs Rim but both have different pros and cons and a con for the rim is this lack of density. The random manner of player distribution is also a contributor both by player choice and machine choice to this paradox.

To me these kind of comparisons are not reasonable unless you do them right nor do they give a true version of what is happening.

 

[DeletedUser15581]

Preetysure... Maccat is right to the extent of saying that you painted a "false picture" with those stats. Its like you are rewarding a school kid for score 60% instead of 50% and punishing a guy for scoring only 95% over 90%. Don't make the 2nd kid suffer because he scored 90% last time. So please edit out the 1st week stats too. per member seems fair and easy to do.

 

[DeletedUser39031]

The only way you can make this work is through a weighted average, which takes no more time than what was done and that is why I was suspicious of the motivations.

I am quite insulted actually, you think I'd rig something so my alliance can be crowned "winner". I made this thread for 3 reasons; Liven up the forums, show alliance growth and give me something to do.

Also, if you wish to have a true version of what is happening leave the forums, I can guarantee 100% of the posts aren't a true version(or at least how you see it) of what is happening.

As for you post czar, I'll try to make the changes tomorrow.

 

[DeletedUser8345]

maccat and the others please appreciate someone before insulting someone
atleast prettysure has done something to liven up the forums. he has done so much of hardwork and then youll insult him on it
prettysure whatever you have done is actually more than enough just the per person thing would have been better

and Maccat if u want all the statistics the way you want then i would suggest www.grepostats.com

 

[DeletedUser15581]

Preetysure... Maccat is right to the extent of saying that you painted a "false picture" with those stats.

When I say he is right to that extent... I wanted to say he was right only to that extent, and he was rude and that language was unwarranted.

Thank you PreetySure, would be waiting for the update

 

[DeletedUser]

When I say he is right to that extent... I wanted to say he was right only to that extent, and he was rude and that language was unwarranted.

Thank you PreetySure, would be waiting for the update

Agree completely

 

[DeletedUser41456]

I for one enjoyed your post Prettysure...whether tru won is irrelevant to me...stats are always fun to look at ..i understand the debate is how the numbers were calculated but good lord calm down ppl lol im sure corrections will be made but appreciate the effort you put into your original post.....per member or not I look foward to next weeks result.

Edit: grepointel gives some good stats for top killers with whatever range of date you want as well...in "top killers " link..but thats personal stats not alliance based....but it takes average into account... (per town).

 

[DeletedUser]

Good read. +rep

 

[DeletedUser15581]

So PreetySure has edited it as promised.

 

[DeletedUser39031]

So PreetySure has edited it as promised.

Yeah, better sooner rather than later to get rid of all the complaints hopefully

 

[DeletedUser]

Still not a weighted average as you are comparing apples to oranges. It appears the concept of a weighted average is lost here, so go with this I don't really care as these kind rankings might be of interest to some they are no interest to me as they stand here.

BTW a weighted average would be that on General points if you add all the points each of the 4 alliances have at the beginning of the review period and lets say alliance A has 51% of those points, alliance b has 14%, and alliance c and d have 12.5 then any increase would have to factored by increase to the pool as a whole ... so lets say every alliance has a 5% increase, then alliance A percentage would be increased by 1.51, and alliance B by by 1.14 etc to be meaningful ... while I haven't done the math it would be a fairer reflection to all. then you would start the process again ... what is being done is that you run a line from 1 review period to the start of the next review period using two starting points to set results and ignoring what has happened in between. All you guys did here was through in yet another factor that is meaningless to the stated goal of what you want the numbers to represent. Anyways you won't hear from me again on this unless it is being used as a propaganda tool, then I will use my skills and make the opposite true

 

[DeletedUser]

Interesting thread.

 

[DeletedUser15581]

Maccat, I didn't check Pool B stats. Just did and figured why are you still complaining

I don't think it is unfair anymore. Like if we have to judge alliances on cities gained, then when Villainy has gained 54 cities after having only 58 players and RO has gained only 58 cities when they have 84 players, Villainy does receive the pat on the back!
You can see you would have been given the benefit in terms of city losses too. Had you lost only 15 cities and Villainy lost 11, you would have been given a higher score despite losing more cities. But then, RO lost too many cities (17) to even score on that count.

 

[DeletedUser]

Forget about the hate man you have done a great job

Honestly I think Maccat is being too picky... If its wrong then show us what is right and we will debate on whos way is better.

 

[DeletedUser41456]

I think Maccat just does not like the results.


It's one guy doing the numbers here. There's no big conspiracy or "propaganda" campaign. Lol.

 

[DeletedUser39031]

I think Maccat just does not like the results.


It's one guy doing the numbers here. There's no big conspiracy or "propaganda" campaign. Lol.

That's what I want you to think

 

[DeletedUser8345]

nice work prettysure
sorry cant +rep you more because have to spread it before giving it to you

and same with maccat
cant -rep you anymore because have to spread it before giving it to you
you cannot be so picky and so self centered
you just want to amend the way these awards are given because u want RO to be the leader which sadly wont happen

 

[DeletedUser]

Maccat, I didn't check Pool B stats. Just did and figured why are you still complaining

I don't think it is unfair anymore. Like if we have to judge alliances on cities gained, then when Villainy has gained 54 cities after having only 58 players and RO has gained only 58 cities when they have 84 players, Villainy does receive the pat on the back!
You can see you would have been given the benefit in terms of city losses too. Had you lost only 15 cities and Villainy lost 11, you would have been given a higher score despite losing more cities. But then, RO lost too many cities (17) to even score on that count.

I'm complaining how it was done not the result. For all I know we come out of it marginally better. It's just crappy stat analysis. It's nice to see that Villany is doing something but they are half our size and at the moment we are still handling a large merge and frankly we are doing ok with it. It's nice of you to harp about our slowdown when we we are consolidating but I didn't hear how well we were doing before the merge all I heard was the V2 propaganda machine whine and complain when a group of alliances got together and how dishonorable that was ... I never laughed so hard ... what Grepo have you been playing? Any alliance with ties to no one that is a threat to individual alliances tends to get people to put aside their differences and work together. You just didn't wish to work with anyone and it hurt you. That was your choice not mine. You never saw me come on here and make fun of the situation or your players like you guys have and believe me there were plenty of silly attacks or city builds that we found that you guys had done. You just saw RO do it's thing and play the game.

I'm proud of the effort my players have put in and all the hard work they have done to consolidate a large merger. It wasn't easy as the numbers show compared to what we accomplished in the past.

Now back to the stats ... if you had bothered to check the math Czar the alliance that benefits the most with doing it properly is V2 so your attacks are just personal and not based on any fact at all and is just you using what ever number appeals to you. The point I was making is that Villainy who gained 58 cities compared to our 54 didn't change the the total much .... we remain twice their size. I will take that until the end of the game, the point is they will have to do a lot better to catch us and that is the real comparison.

As for the OP, yes he did a lot of hard work it is just that he came to the wrong conclusion.

Oh Czar an increase of 58 cities while losing 17 after a big merger and people deciding to leave, thanks for that info I actually thought it was worse. BTW do you care to tell everyone what RO's record was prior to our merger against you ... most likely not but I forget in your world we gained that only because others were dishonorably attacking you, something you say to every alliance that was involved in attacking you. One last point on your view of the stats and how you see what you want to see ... RO losing 17 cities compared to the number of cities it has is actually a much lower average than Villainy losing 11 to it's total cities ... just an observation how you like to make statements that sound good but have no real basis in fact ... BTW there was an alliance that increased it's city total from 1 to 4 based on your view they win

You might benefit from actually reading my post on what is actually wrong with the model used, like I said V2 benefits the most from it but your too busy to find a way to attack me that it is lost on you.

Anyways I got better things to do than come on this forum and listen to V2 players say how great they are and how everyone else is stupid ... oh rats a bad word ... no you prefer to not use the "S" word but find some other passive aggressive way to actually imply the meaning of that word so you feel better about yourself.

If the OP wants help for the next stat. analysis for the overall community I will be more than willing to assist him with the proper formula but I'm certainly not collecting data or this.


P.S. sorry for the long post I had to repeat myself several times so that the point hopefully gets through