Zoot

Stats? On a Sunday? First the pretty graph Now as you can see a clear tendency is emerging. The BK side is barely taking any damage, while the UPN side is quickly approaching non-existence. At the current rate they will cease to exist in less than 2 weeks! "But wait! I just checked the total for the UPN side on the graph from yesterday and it looks like it's about the same as today. Are you cooking the numbers Zoot?" No dammit! I already explained it! When new alliances join I add them to the stats for the previous days to avoid weird jumps in the graphs and the UPN side have had Fark join them since last...oh and I kinda forgot to include Alpha, gg me Now what else? Well unfortunately there is nothing interesting in the stats. Well except for Fark losing more than 25% of their score in a day...but besides that it's just mostly more of the same. The BK side lost around 9k score and the UPN side lost more than 5 times as much. So yeah, same old same old. Well I did notice one thing. Don't know if I've mentioned it previously. From the beginning of the current conflict only 3 alliances on the BK side have lost more than 20% of their score. On the UPN side only 1 alliance has lost less than 20% of their score (well two if you count Alpha, but they lost a lot more than 20% of their score before this current conflict started, so they don't count).

Heh, I was actually thinking of throwing one together like I have in past wars, but time has been a little sparse...god damn war actually requiring me to fight and stuff

Well Placentica, it's kinda hard to destroy infrastructure you guys don't have...

OMG it's been a day (kinda)! More stats! First the pretty graph thingy! Now some of you might say "wait a minute Zoot, that doesn't look like a continuation of the graph from yesterday!". I already explained this in the op, stupid! When new alliances join I include their joining score in the previous days to avoid silly jumps in the graph, that means that when new alliances join it influences the way the graph looked for the previous days. Moving on. The BK side now has 1/3 more score than the UPN side, so a come back is looking less and less likely. Especially when you consider that the BK side lost a total of 4k score since last while the UPN side lost approximately 16 times more. This brings the UPN side to a total loss of 36%, while the BK side stays at a 10% loss. The reason for this is that about half the alliances on the BK side have grown since yesterday. The top flying alliance remains NPO climbing to 58% damage, though Rose is gaining ground and has jumped to 43%! Rose also has the honor of now being the alliance that has taken the most numerical damage with with a whopping 80k score loss!

Well Psweet, despite knowing that your question isn't serious I will explain it anyways. The truth is it isn't important per se, it's not like the game can't be played without it. What it is is a very simple feature that should be pretty easy to add and that will simplify things for the players since it gives them important information in a simple way. As such it improves the playing experience, which I believe we can all agree is a good thing. That sounds like a completely different suggestion. I'd suggest that you create another topic for it

As it is now, there is no way to see from your war page (or from any other page as far as I know) when a war is going to expire. It would be really useful if this information was readily available, rather than requiring you to figure it out based on the start time of the war. This would be especially useful for new players who may not know how long it takes from the time a war starts till it expires. I could go more into why this would be a good idea, but I think it's pretty obvious so unless someone asks me to expand on this I'll just refrain from making this into a wall of text.

So, someone was like "Why there be no stats? ", so here are some stats. But first! A graphs, because a pictures tells a trillion words or something: Now you may be saying "that can't be right, where are the spikes from alliances joining in?" and you're right. To avoid having the graphs spike all over the place I've made it so that when a new alliance joins their score for that day is added to their side for the previous days. This means that the graph gives a more accurate representation of the damage taken without being polluted by latecomers. Also it's BK side and UPN side because they were the largest alliances on their side when things kicked off. Now I'm not going to do a list of alliances and how they've changed, that's too much effort and I'm lazy. What I am gonna do is post highlights! Everyone likes a good highlight! Lets start with some highlights from a couple of days ago, since they're nice and stuff: From the start of the war till Wednesday UPN had lost more score than the entire BK side combined. As had NPO. This has since changed so now they've only lost a little more than 2/3 the score of the entire other side...each. Oh and Rose also holds that honor. In terms of percentages we have a clear high flier in NPO with a 55% score loss. In comparison the high flier on the BK-side is t$ with a 26% score loss. As for the sides, the UPN side has lost 30% of their initial score while the BK side has lost a little more than 10%. That's all we have time for now! Check back whenever I get bored for more stats! NOTE: The numbers are taken from the ingame graph thingy because easy. Also I take no responsibilities for potential mistakes I may have made. PS: Let me know what you think of getting your stats in a less number heavy, less serious way and if enough of you !@#$ I might give a damn

Sweet! The tradition of me getting completely smashed by nations way larger than my own gets to continue for another war o/ Sparta

Yay! Templates

I like how in the same post you mention how long the NPO treaty, which you failed to inform us about, was in the work and accuse us of holding back information...but hey, we aren't mad, because guess what our treaty doesn't have, an information sharing clause...

No, Ayy Lmao

God all you people are so full of it. Since this is an OOC area I'm gonna try not to be biased against either side, despite the fact that you are all clearly arguing your various party lines... Most importantly, regardless of what the actual CB of the war in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is, the fact that a rallying cry of "For Steve" went up ties the war to the one in PnW. Whether joking or not it creates a connection. When I first heard of the war in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) what I heard was (more or less direct quote): "Alpha's allies have finally come to their aid, they just did it in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) rather than PnW". Now this wasn't part of some party line or someone trying to spin, this was just a guy I was talking to on irc. So regardless of whether the two wars are actually linked, they are linked in the minds of people. Now some of you are saying "Who cares about what happens in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)?". The problem with that is that the people that still play (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) obviously cares and the idea that actions in PnW can have an influence on them in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) will obviously effect how people act in PnW. Now just to be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of actually punishing people in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) for their actions in PnW, what I'm saying is that the second the cry of "For Steve" started the uncertainty was created in peoples' minds. Could actions taken in PnW have consequences in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)? Just the fact that people think that means that (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) politics are influencing PnW. Moving on, the idea that (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and PnW aren't linked is ridicules. Several of you have brought your alliances here from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), several of you use the same name as you do in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). Now you can claim that you can keep it separate all you want, but really, who are you trying to fool? You bring your alliances to PnW because you want to bring your community to PnW, thus you are linking the two. You are bringing your name with you because you want people from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) to recognize you, thus you are linking the two. I've seen several NPO members say that they shouldn't be judged based on the actions of their (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) counterparts and then in the same breath say that they are trying to bring their community here. If you are the same community then how do you expect people to not use their experience with your community as a base for their interactions with you here? And just so it's clear, I'm not trying to single NPO out, several other alliances are doing the same. I just used NPO because they have been at the center of this whole thing. Furthermore if people truly wanted to keep things separate, they wouldn't have used the same name here as they did in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). They use the same name so they can use their (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) contacts to further their PnW politics. It's obvious in this topic. When people bring up something Chimera has said it has more weight because he is who he is in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), despite the fact that he hasn't really done anything of note in PnW. When people talk to IC or Hans or Roq they do it full knowing what they've done and accomplished in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (unless they've never played (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)) and thus it influences the interaction. Denying that fact is simply silly. (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and PnW are connected, by the communities that have crossed over, by the people and relationships that have been brought over. We can't do anything against that, but as PnW grows older (and hopefully larger) the influence will decrease as alliances and people in PnW will create new relationships and have past actions in PnW to be judged by.

WAIT! Isn't that how it works?

Except that's not really what it says, is it? It says that if someone ghosts t$ you might choose to consider yourself to be at a state of war with that alliance. If the announcement actually said that you would consider anyone ghosting t$ a DoW then it would have meaning, but since all it really says is that you might choose to consider yourself at war with someone, this announcement is pointless. I could make an announcement that BK might choose to consider ourselves at war with anyone who undercut us on the market. It would be equally pointless since all it would really do is reaffirm that BK has the option of considering ourselves at war with anyone we feel like going to war with.

WAIT! Are you saying that if you chose to be at war with someone you're at war with someone? That's brilliant! ...or extremely redundant, whichever really...

I'm not a lady! ...I mean, wut? People do that?

GW1, GW2, GW3 etc. it is...

Yes, this, this is the name "Steve's War"

And so started Steve's War

That sounds like what someone who DID leak it would say! Dun dun dun!

Then why do you constantly choose to ignore the facts presented to you and refuse to provide any evidence or examples of this bullying t$ is apparently engaging in?

TKR-Cornerstone MDoAP seems to be missing - https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/12060-the-radiant-stone-accords/

Congrats on the treaty guys

You're not talking about operation Ayy Lmao? We agreed it would never come to that! I'm obviously the best soldier...

...his nation is older than yours