Winners and Losers

[DeletedUser41456]

This thread was started by a tru member just giving WEEKLY stats man...calm down...no propaganda..just some fun..anyone is free to post their own stats up...so please do so if u are not happy with how it was calculated.

added: Tru who came in third in their pool btw...so theres no propaganda..just some fun to liven up the forums man.

 

[DeletedUser15581]

I saw a long post quoting mine, can't care to read it, the red dot against the name told me its not worth reading

 

[DeletedUser39031]

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

The whole half the size part does not matter anymore, it is the players. You have more players (nearly double I believe) so you should be gaining double the cities to get a near even result. Your alliance did not do that in the week. I did not see any harping by anyone other than yourself who brought attention to the matter.

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.

Nobody was saying there was no effort, but the stats for the week did not show well.

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 I said before, these stats are for the week in reference, Villainy did much better than Redwood in this week for its size.

.BTW do you care to tell everyone what RO's record was prior to our merger against you

This week only.

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

Well yes, that is how I originally did it, but then it was brought to my attention that these weren't correct as it a)benefited smaller alliances b)merges would stuff it up
The system I use currently by player measurement is much better.

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.

There are no real benefits in this thread for the alliance winning. (Maybe plus rep and a sticker)

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.

This is the first time I have heard anyone call anyone else stupid in this thread.

That's just my opinion anyway.

 

[DeletedUser8345]

I'm complaining how it was done not the result. It's just crappy stat analysis.

why dont you make your own stats and just keep RO as rank 1?
thats what you want right?

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.

villainy is better than you'll because even though they had less members, they conquered more cities.
so villiany's 58 divided by 59 is more than RO's 54 divide by 85 so they did a more commendable job this week

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.

prettysure is doing something nice by collecting data is analyzing and solving it but you yet want to crib over the stats then better not visit the thread

 

[DeletedUser340]

Who cares who is #1?

Be grateful this guy spent his free time making stats for you guys.

Thanks mate, good read and a great idea.

 

[DeletedUser]

Still loving the thread, keep up the good work. I know its easy to fall off the bandwagon with this kind of stuff, but I think everyone really appreciates what your doing here. Expect for that one problem

 

[DeletedUser39031]

Thread Updated-Pool B shortly to happen.

 

[DeletedUser]

Based on some of the comments I see here then some of the new alliances beat every one by going from 1 to 10 cities in a weeks time ... if you don't understand that concept then go back to school.

Here is the problem is we have Alliance a with 100 cities alliance b with 30 cities alliance c has 50 cities and alliance d has 20 cities (numbers are an example only)

That is a total pool of 200 ... Alliance A 50% of the pool, Alliance B is 15% of the pool, Alliance c is 25% of the pool and alliance d is 10% of the pool

Now If alliance a) has an increase of 24 and alliance C has an increase of 26 while the others have none by what everyone seems to be saying here is that while alliance A increased 24% were as alliance C has increased by more than 54% and then make the statement that Alliance C demolished Alliance A by 26% ... this is a old trick and is known illusion of large numbers. So far none of you make it in political backrooms, well maybe the Romney Campaign but that is another story.

The goal of the game is to catch other alliances in size ... by that number 100 to 24 you would expect alliance C to catch A in about 3 weeks if that result held true ... I think we can all agree that won't happen at a plus increase of 2 per week.

This is what is really happening ... the stat pool increased by 25% alliance A went from 50% to 49.6 [(100+24)/250] or a drop of .40% (50 -49.6) whereas alliance c is now at 29.6% of the pool (50+26)/250 ... unfortunately because of weighted averaging Alliance c increased 4.60% (29 -25.6) therefore Alliance c increased it's position by 5% not the imposing number of 26%

So as we see you can be fooled by first impressions of numbers. Redwoods are in a weird position we are small enough to wreck the numbers and make the top 4 alliances have bad numbers, and it is equally bad for Redwoods the other way for the same reason.

I think if we used the weighted average we could get a better look at what is happening as it rewards all alliances equally for the work they have done in the past.

Like I said if someone collects the data, I'm willing to do the math beyond that and we can then do a 8 alliance comparison to get a real look at what is happening.

The reason I'm not going to collect data here is that the exercise is pointless and at the current numbers the relative changes in numbers will be too small to get excited about. The real analysis is simply look at the various numbers provided by the game and that tells the story of the world, ... what alliances are active in both defense and offense, what point value each alliance is in comparison to the other, what do each alliances have to do to move up that list etc.

So we should do this right and give the alliances that do well props for the weekly hard work. Other than that it really is a waste of time and effort only good for people to bang their chest and pronounce how good they are when they maybe fooling themselves.

My way levels the playing field and creates something that can reliably be used.

 

[DeletedUser15581]

You made mistakes in the calculations above. Would you read and fix it up on your own or would I need to explain?

Also... what is the point of the exercise? You wanted alliance C to beat alliance A in its percentage share to prove it is doing good or simply increase its percentage share while make A drop? If it is the former, it is as good as going with absolute numbers, if it is latter, you are punishing alliance A for having a big size which you are advocating against. So your whole long post does seem silly

 

[DeletedUser]

You made mistakes in the calculations above. Would you read and fix it up on your own or would I need to explain?

Also... what is the point of the exercise? You wanted alliance C to beat alliance A in its percentage share to prove it is doing good or simply increase its percentage share while make A drop? If it is the former, it is as good as going with absolute numbers, if it is latter, you are punishing alliance A for having a big size which you are advocating against. So your whole long post does seem silly

You would be surprised at the number of people that would see 25% of the pool and think the 25 + 26 statement was true ... just playing around to see if anyone is really reading ... I saw another error but that was a legit.

Why the long post ... because of impressions ...26% or 5% me personally I like the lower number but it is more than that. For instance I can make a sweeping statement, like the original numbers were, that to measure player aggression or alliance aggression you take the ratio of ABP/DBP meaning that with ABP you have to actively seek out these points or take aggressive action or wait for it to come to you (DBP) but I would be really wrong for many reasons. One good reason is the defense of other team mates is an active act. Another good one is that when one alliance gets teamed up against because of past active activities.

Bottom line is that I don't like exaggerated numbers or statements and yes it is important in this game. Exaggeration is a means to portray a negative image which makes the target of this on them making pacts, mergers or recruiting players that much harder. Is it game play sure, not one I like nor would use as I see it as silly. It is also fair game to call people out on it.

Once again I will help with the numbers if someone collects the data.

 

[DeletedUser]

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.

This is the first time I have heard anyone call anyone else stupid in this thread.

That's just my opinion anyway.

It appears that sarcasm is lost on the external forums these days

 

[DeletedUser15581]

what is the point of the exercise? You wanted alliance C to beat alliance A in its percentage share to prove it is doing good or simply increase its percentage share while make A drop? If it is the former, it is as good as going with absolute numbers, if it is latter, you are punishing alliance A for having a big size which you are advocating against.

You are yet to reply to this even after you quoted it ! and I didn't make any personal remark on you. just that your post was silly.... pointless.

 

[DeletedUser39031]

Maccat, the increase in cities is based per player, as all the stats are. Rather than dividing it by 1 100th of the original amount, you divide it by the players it has. If your asking about the Truculence jump there was a merge, hence the large numbers. Player base reflects an alliances average growth per player. Your arguing about a calculation I used at the start of the thread and then changed it, RO is not getting robbed, nor any other alliances. This is not a propaganda thread. Overall, some alliances are not increasing by enough points for the amount of players they have to reflect with high stats

 

[DeletedUser15581]

Preety sure, I see you have done this for the 2nd week. Also, your explanation makes clear your rules about all time leader boards, nice.

would have +repped you if I was allowed, will do it when I am allowed next. I can't take this much pain for maintaining a thread, so you deserve rep for the effort

 

[DeletedUser39031]

Preety sure, I see you have done this for the 2nd week. Also, your explanation makes clear your rules about all time leader boards, nice.

would have +repped you if I was allowed, will do it when I am allowed next. I can't take this much pain for maintaining a thread, so you deserve rep for the effort

Anything to keep the forums active while I am waiting

 

[DeletedUser8345]

love the update
but would recommend one thing
you should either remove total abp and total dbp or remove totalbp because it becomes a little advantage for venom
so they are surely going to get these 30 points so they will win all the time

winning is not that important but your effort is worth rewarding
oops cant +rep you more!!!

 

[DeletedUser39031]

love the update
but would recommend one thing
you should either remove total abp and total dbp or remove totalbp because it becomes a little advantage for venom
so they are surely going to get these 30 points so they will win all the time

winning is not that important but your effort is worth rewarding
oops cant +rep you more!!!

I was thinking of replacing that category with a different one but it would create an unfair advantage to my alliance in particular. (Certain win for my alliance for a few weeks at least)

 

[DeletedUser15581]

so is it really a given that no one can beat Venom in gaining BP in any week? that too on a per player basis? I thought we faced more competition than that

 

[DeletedUser8345]

i suggest just remove total BP so it is done
no need to add anything else unless someone else suggests something else

 

[DeletedUser39031]

so is it really a given that no one can beat Venom in gaining BP in any week? that too on a per player basis? I thought we faced more competition than that

DBP speaking for my alliance we have no hope of that even with the wars we are involved in, which hinders our TBP per member.

Devil I was going to make a new category based on the percentage of cities above 5k in their core ocean. But if you look at the map Truc would get easy points on that