Orbis Times®

Numbers aren't everything, you know. I don't think this sort of discussion has any real value unless you are intimately familiar with how both alliances work internally. It's really only a baby step up from opinion polls on which is the "best alliance."

 

The same idea applies to individual players. Everyone likes to think that their friends are the best in the game, but is it really the case that they are good at what they do just because you like them personally? This idea is pretty much why democracy sucks in these games.

 

Here's the million dollar question. How do you measure the success of an alliance? Are they just blobs of nations with lots of military, or is there something more to it? At the end of the day I would say that this kind of analysis misses the point.

Numbers aren't everything, you know. I don't think this sort of discussion has any real value unless you are intimately familiar with how both alliances work internally. It's really only a baby step up from opinion polls on which is the "best alliance."

 

The same idea applies to individual players. Everyone likes to think that their friends are the best in the game, but is it really the case that they are good at what they do just because you like them personally? This idea is pretty much why democracy sucks in these games.

 

Here's the million dollar question. How do you measure the success of an alliance? Are they just blobs of nations with lots of military, or is there something more to it? At the end of the day I would say that this kind of analysis misses the point.

I think you've made some interesting points. But there's a saying that "numbers don't lie" and from the current look, numbers seem to prevail right now. Until we can see changes in numbers, the numbers justify the facts. Though I should say each alliance works differently, with some focusing on economic growth with minimal military, while others are focusing on military with minimal economic growth. And although you may say "that's why democracy sucks in these games," that's your opinion with no clear analysis, and it depends on how it is carry out.

I think you've made some interesting points. But there's a saying that "numbers don't lie" and from the current look, numbers seem to prevail right now. Until we can see changes in numbers, the numbers justify the facts. Though I should say each alliance works differently, with some focusing on economic growth with minimal military, while others are focusing on military with minimal economic growth. And although you may say "that's why democracy sucks in these games," that's your opinion with no clear analysis, and it depends on how it is carry out.

Numbers do lie. An alliance can have great numbers, but their members may not be reliable enough. They may log in once every 2 or 3 days, rendering them virtually useless in emergency situations. They may not be involved in the goings-on of the alliance. Some of them might not even have an account on their alliance's off-site forums. What happens if the alliance with the smaller numbers is more active and capable of increasing those numbers much faster than the alliance with the better numbers? That's not unheard of at all, and really goes to show how meaningless counting stats at any given time actually is.

 

The idea that democracy sucks in these games is not just an opinion. It is an observation of reality based on years of playing games just like this, and first-hand experience watching the negative impact democratic elections as a method of selecting leadership tends to have on an alliance. It may not be set in stone in every single situation, but it doesn't have to be.

Numbers do lie. An alliance can have great numbers, but their members may not be reliable enough. They may log in once every 2 or 3 days, rendering them virtually useless in emergency situations. They may not be involved in the goings-on of the alliance. Some of them might not even have an account on their alliance's off-site forums. What happens if the alliance with the smaller numbers is more active and capable of increasing those numbers much faster than the alliance with the better numbers? That's not unheard of at all, and really goes to show how meaningless counting stats at any given time actually is.

 

The idea that democracy sucks in these games is not just an opinion. It is an observation of reality based on years of playing games just like this, and first-hand experience watching the negative impact democratic elections as a method of selecting leadership tends to have on an alliance. It may not be set in stone in every single situation, but it doesn't have to be.

The context you're giving is invalid. An alliance having a high number and what that number actually means are two different things. If an alliance has 50 members, we see it as 50 numbers, we do not care much if all those 50 members are actively participating. Therefore we see 50 and nothing other than that. Or are you going to say that "no" they don't have 50 members simply because all 50 are not participating, although we do see 50? Are you now discounting the other members whom may not be participating as much? What if then they become active and are participating more...are they now considered members? Most alliances warn not to attack a member despite the perceive inactive because they still count as a member of the alliance. As for your question of alliance with smaller numbers...if I see an alliance with small numbers, I will regard it as a alliance with smaller numbers. If I cared much to learn about the alliance and their members, I would. But as far as I know, they have a small numbers, which isn't to say that they are not strong or have meaningful impact.

 

Democracy can work. It depends on how it is implemented. I have been playing games like these and some alliances I had been in had democracy and it worked well.

 

Correction: Most alliances warn not to attack (I wrote talk)...

The context you're giving is invalid. An alliance having a high number and what that number actually means are two different things. If an alliance has 50 members, we see it as 50 numbers, we do not care much if all those 50 members are actively participating. Therefore we see 50 and nothing other than that. Or are you going to say that "no" they don't have 50 members simply because all 50 are not participating, although we do see 50? Are you now discounting the other members whom may not be participating as much? What if then they become active and are participating more...are they now considered members? Most alliances warn not to talk a member despite the perceive inactive because they still count as a member of the alliance. As for your question of alliance with smaller numbers...if I see an alliance with small numbers, I will regard it as a alliance with smaller numbers. If I cared much to learn about the alliance and their members, I would. But as far as I know, they have a small numbers, which isn't to say that they are not strong or have meaningful impact.

 

Democracy can work. It depends on how it is implemented. I have been playing games like these and some alliances I had been in had democracy and it worked well.

We're comparing alliances here. That was the point of this post from what I understand. In what universe is an alliance with members that log in every day and participate directly in the alliance affairs not a better alliance than one with members that log in every 2 or 3 days and who aren't registered on their forums? Just because an alliance has military numbers doesn't mean that alliance is equal to another alliance with similar numbers if that second alliance also has a more active and engaged community. Like I said, this sort of analysis completely misses the point, and much more information is needed before an accurate judgement can be made.

 

What you are basically saying is that two alliances with 50 members will be equal in value even if one of those two alliances has a better community with more active players. That could not be further from the truth.

We're comparing alliances here. That was the point of this post from what I understand. In what universe is an alliance with members that log in every day and participate directly in the alliance affairs not a better alliance than one with members that log in every 2 or 3 days and who aren't registered on their forums? Just because an alliance has military numbers doesn't mean that alliance is equal to another alliance with similar numbers if that second alliance also has a more active and engaged community. Like I said, this sort of analysis completely misses the point, and much more information is needed before an accurate judgement can be made.

 

What you are basically saying is that two alliances with 50 members will be equal in value even if one of those two alliances has a better community with more active players. That could not be further from the truth.

The writer is comparing the alliances military.The writer wasn't compare the two alliances in overall terms. If the writer was, the writer would have talked about the alliance with more active members, better economic condition, less wars, less active members, and more. The writer was simply talking about the military, which isn't to say that the alliance with more military is of higher value than the other.

 

I never said that an alliance is better than the other overall, I was speaking in military terms, from what I see. I was stating a point that "numbers don't lie" and as far as we know, an alliance with more members in the game would be viewed as the alliance with the most members. An alliance with the least members would be viewed as the alliance with the least members. Now, just because I say that doesn't mean that an alliance with smaller members aren't better or at least as valuable as an alliance with more members. 

 

Plus I never said anything about..."an alliance with members that log in every day and participating directly in the alliance affairs not a better alliance than one with members that log in every 2 or 3 days and who aren't registered on their forums..." I simply said: "But as far as I know, they have a small numbers, which isn't to say that they are not strong or have meaningful impact." I wasn't say that an alliance with smaller members who log in every day aren't better than an alliance with more members who barely logs in. My point was that if I see an alliance with 50 members, I see it as an alliance with 50 members, if I see an alliance with 20 members, I see it as alliance with 20 members. Should I care, I would see who's more participate.

 

Again, I wasn't say that an alliance with a better military numbers is as valuable as an alliance with smaller military numbers, with active members, in overall terms. My point, again, is that what I see is what I see. If I see an alliance with a better military numbers, I will see their military as being better than the other. Is that the same as same that overall, they are better than the alliance with smaller numbers? No. But that their military numbers is better. That's the fact. Now if the other alliance beef up it's military numbers and it surpasses the other alliance military numbers, I would consider their military number as being better. I'm basing my judgement on the numbers I see, not what is going on internally. That is something else we can talk about, if you want.

 

Lastly, no. Two alliances with 50 members is not better than an alliance with more active players. But if those two alliances have greater military than the more active players, I would consider their military being stronger. Should the active alliance with less member beef up its military and surpasses the alliance with 50 members, I would think otherwise. 

Actually, the writer asked the question "Is Rose actually more valuable than VE?" That is the question that was asked. He then went on to use military stats exclusively to try to make his point. It doesn't work that way.

 

You may try to change his argument or his question after the fact all you want, but don't expect me to let it go without pointing it out. He questioned which alliance was "more valuable." He wondered aloud whether or not Rose might be the "true might" in the game.. All based off what is essentially a screenshot of military statistics at a specific point in time. That doesn't work. There is much more to the equation than that. This is the point I'm making, and you trying to change the topic to something else entirely doesn't make your point for you.

 

 

Should the active alliance with less member beef up its military and surpasses the alliance with 50 members, I would think otherwise.

Thank you for illustrating my point about how useless it is to compare stats at any given point in time.

Actually, the writer asked the question "Is Rose actually more valuable than VE?" That is the question that was asked. He then went on to use military stats exclusively to try to make his point. It doesn't work that way.

 

You may try to change his argument or his question after the fact all you want, but don't expect me to let it go without pointing it out. He questioned which alliance was "more valuable." He wondered aloud whether or not Rose might be the "true might" in the game.. All based off what is essentially a screenshot of military statistics at a specific point in time. That doesn't work. There is much more to the equation than that. This is the point I'm making, and you trying to change the topic to something else entirely doesn't make your point for you.

 

 

Thank you for illustrating my point about how useless it is to compare stats at any given point in time.

That's the thing with journalism -- the story doesn't always align the headline. It is meant to lure people into reading and most real world media outlet out there do it. You, as the reader, are to make your argument based on what you've read. We did that exercise in comparative politics. We were given an article to read and saw that most of what was written had nothing to do with the title and that caused some discussion in the room. Think of it as reading a book. You wouldn't based your understanding of your book exclusively on its title.

 

 From my standpoint, your point is well taken about the question the article posed. Perhaps, it should had asked: "Is Rose actually more valuable than VE, militarily speaking? However, it's up to the writer to choose how he/she formats the headline. And it's up to you, the reader, to grasp the understanding based on what you've read and make your own judgement, instead of always judging based on the title.

 

You're welcome. But we have to use current numbers to compare and see how they have changed over time. Or is this a bad practice?

That's the thing with journalism -- the story doesn't always align the headline. It is meant to lure people into reading and most real world media outlet out there do it. You, as the reader, are to make your argument based on what you've read. We did that exercise in comparative politics. We were given an article to read and saw that most of what was written had nothing to do with the title and that caused some discussion in the room. Think of it as reading a book. You wouldn't based your understanding of your book exclusively on its title.

 

 From my standpoint, your point is well taken about the question the article posed. Perhaps, it should had asked: "Is Rose actually more valuable than VE, militarily speaking? However, it's up to the writer to choose how he/she formats the headline. And it's up to you, the reader, to grasp the understanding based on what you read and make your own judgement, instead of always judging based on the title.

 

You're welcome. But we have to use current numbers to compare and see how they have changed over time. Or is this a bad practice?

I didn't base my understanding of the OP's argument off the title. I based my understanding of his argument off his argument, which was "Rose has more ships per nation, nukes/missiles/treasures/in-game ads, therefore maybe they might be the more powerful alliance." Your story about a class you took has nothing to do with this blog post because the topic of this post was completely in line with the content of the post itself. He just presented a lousy argument, and you are trying to brush that aside with your stuff about headlines.

 

Militarily speaking, we still can't say for sure which is more valuable. Again, there is more to the equation than what is provided here. Based on the information provided here, we can't even determine who would win a war. There is no mention of plane counts, and those are the most important unit. They appear to have a clear advantage in nukes and missiles, but there is no mention of Iron Domes or spies. In fact, treasures are deemed more important than both planes and spies based on the fact that they were mentioned but the other two units were not. If you really want to get into the nitty-gritty of it, then it deserves to be mentioned that the author attempted to throw in-game ads into the mix to help explain why Rose is better. So ads are a factor but planes are not? This is just lazy analysis, and doesn't really even fit into the narrative that you're trying to push.

 

To me it seems more like he had an argument he wanted to make (that Rose is more valuable,) and then cherry-picked information to try to make that point. He may or may not be right about Rose, but the argument he's put forward isn't good enough to prove it whether you approach it by using my argument (comparing activity and internal affairs) or if you use yours (pure military stats). That's basically all I'm saying.

As said score does not matter it's the quality loyalty and effecincy of the members

Ayy lmao

Rose ftw

Can you guys stop quoting each other? You're making the comments section super long.

Also, Kadin, you're right, just because I have some possible pieces of evidence, doesn't mean it's correct. I just had this theory and wanted to post it to see if you guys agreed/disagreed.

I didn't base my understanding of the OP's argument off the title. I based my understanding of his argument off his argument, which was "Rose has more ships per nation, nukes/missiles/treasures/in-game ads, therefore maybe they might be the more powerful alliance." Your story about a class you took has nothing to do with this blog post because the topic of this post was completely in line with the content of the post itself. He just presented a lousy argument, and you are trying to brush that aside with your stuff about headlines.

 

Militarily speaking, we still can't say for sure which is more valuable. Again, there is more to the equation than what is provided here. Based on the information provided here, we can't even determine who would win a war. There is no mention of plane counts, and those are the most important unit. They appear to have a clear advantage in nukes and missiles, but there is no mention of Iron Domes or spies. In fact, treasures are deemed more important than both planes and spies based on the fact that they were mentioned but the other two units were not. If you really want to get into the nitty-gritty of it, then it deserves to be mentioned that the author attempted to throw in-game ads into the mix to help explain why Rose is better. So ads are a factor but planes are not? This is just lazy analysis, and doesn't really even fit into the narrative that you're trying to push.

 

To me it seems more like he had an argument he wanted to make (that Rose is more valuable,) and then cherry-picked information to try to make that point. He may or may not be right about Rose, but the argument he's put forward isn't good enough to prove it whether you approach it by using my argument (comparing activity and internal affairs) or if you use yours (pure military stats). That's basically all I'm saying.

I think we can rest this argument, because you're right, the author did not present a clear analysis, having left out planes, iron domes, spies, and making Ad a factor. That I will not argue with you on, because you've made your case. 

Either that or you've gotten bored

 

 

The real question is: should UPN be up there at #2?

Lol

 

If you say numbers don't count then I think you were partially right - look at Terradoxia VS Arrgh.

You mean when Arrgh dissolved TDX?

maybe because rose (ie oblige) has small dick problems and throws his money at games to make it grow?

It's a meaningless point for discussion really, but... It makes a lot more sense to think about alliance power in terms of potential military might and potential allied military might. What you are measuring, if you are thinking about military power, is the amount of force that a particular alliance can bring to a war. 

 

Of course, you have no real way to measure effectiveness. If alliance A has potential military might of 100, and alliance B has 80, but alliance B is far more effective at coordination... Then A will lose. But wars are so far apart and effectiveness so variable that you couldn't really measure it well.