Pablo

Members
  • Content count

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

1 Follower

About Pablo

  • Rank
    Active Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Alliance Pip
    The Syndicate
  • Leader Name
    Pablo
  • Nation Name
    Global United States
  • Nation ID
    29271
  • Alliance Name
    Zodiac

Recent Profile Visitors

416 profile views
  1. War Stats 2.0

    What is exactly not accurate according to you? Frawley’s stats and this set of stats can’t match because he took steel something around 5000 ppu, if I am wrong there please correct me. These stats are taking steel at 3500 ppu. So if you know some maths you should be able to understand how values can vary. Units lost/destroyed are taken directly from the API provided by the game, so it should be completely accurate. I will say once again that infrastructure damage is directly taken from in-game Stats Tracker, which is known to provide unreliable data in some cases. I would like to point out how said tool has been used before for other conflicts and it was well accepted by then. There is no data provided by the game to calculate or ‘get’ infrastructure data 100% accurate, which is why the Stat Tracker has been used as it also is impartial, miscalculations are for everyone regardless of alliance affiliation. I can only grant you the issue with people deleting or leaving alliances fighting are not included there. Other than that it is you trying to deny what is obvious. You are likely to be in disadvantage when Frawley releases his stats, I cannot wait for the arguments you will make up to try keep painting you still as ‘winning’ by then. I will have fun quoting all of you.
  2. War Stats 2.0

    Infrastructure data was taken from in-game stats tracker, which is known to be unreliable in some situations, stat tracker that for your information has been used in past wars to collect stats. I would like to point out that the miscalculations in the stats tracker are totally random and Alex didn’t code it to purposely favor one side or another. In addition, there is no real ‘accurate’ way to pull infrastructure data, we could try to craft a method to estimate it, but it will never be exact because the game itself doesn't proportionate enough data. As the spreadsheet mentions, infrastructure data is directly taken from the in-game stat tracker, which in some situations proportionates inaccurate data. You can refer to my quote above to get more specifics. Infrastructure data may be not accurate in some situations, yes. It has been used before and I would dare to say it has been an standard in stats for previous wars, because even though there are miscalculations, those doesn’t ‘target’ one or another alliance. Military/units and money loot should be completely accurate though. Infrastructure damage has been directly taken from the in-game stats tracker. No one manipulated in any way, shape or form any number you see there. If you really did your calculation fine, the miscalculation happened randomly to you. Refer to my previous quotes if you would like to know more specifics. And yes, units/military and money loot data should be 100% accurate. Such as individual stats in there are. Infrastructure data has been taken from said in-game tool in previous wars because there isn’t no other way to calculate it to an individual level without doing estimations. I am using the in-game stats tracker, I invite you to use it and sum up all the data you see in there and you will find out how it perfectly matches the spreadsheet. No one touched any digit there, trying to imply that we manipulated the data in our favor is simply an offense because no such thing happened.
  3. War Stats 2.0

    Read the notes. It is taking infrastructure data from Alex Stats Tracker. He has said it is inaccurate in some situations. It has been used in previous wars and as well in another stat thread for this conflict. Wow, what an accurate indicator for war progress
  4. War Stats 2.0

    BK STRONK!!
  5. Ultra Instinct NPO

    Beautiful, amazing art @TheNG
  6. The Ayyslamic Caliphate Rises

    BK STRONK
  7. An attack on our allies is a direct attack on us.
  8. Oh well, I can’t tell the difference now. Wow making fun of my name. I ain’t complaining, I am highlighting the facts you seem to ignore
  9. Lmao Thalmor just misread what I said. It was pretty obvious that I was just referring to Buorhann. I don’t know where he pulled out I was implying all the alliance was an easy roll.
  10. Buorhann has 17 cities, the smallest there. You seem to ignore that fact, dude. I am not saying we are utterly boned lmao. I am just highlighting the fact that there is not much opportunity to fight back for us given the differences in tiers.
  11. I wasn’t referring to the number of cities, I was referring to the amount of nations in the alliance. I think there was a misunderstanding there. This clearly won’t take us anywhere, as both of us think are right. I will stay in that this conflict is pathetic, just picking easy targets without risk. And you will keep saying we can updeclare most of them to bring them down. No point in going further. What a way to show how good you are.
  12. To be fair, we already have planes maxed, we aren’t getting ground, it would be counterproductive, refer to war range and downdeclares. We are going to be using those nations as I have pointed out before, but realistically most of their 22 nations are untouchable, you keep skipping that. This war just shows people seem to prefer an easy fight, even using ghosts for it.
  13. Thank you, dealing with your misleading statements requires lots of mental power. So let me try to get it right. Are the 40 nations you said “most of Inquisition”? I mean you have said before we had like 600 nations. According to my maths that isn’t near the majority. As I said before, it is a free of risk war, that was its entire purpose lmao. I can’t believe you don’t see that. Maybe if you say enough something l, you start believing so. I am not saying otherwise. I am implying that there were people above them helping out, unlike now.
  14. I don’t think INQ barriers were at 10 city nations at the time. They had support from others with higher city counts. I can’t see that in this scenario.
  15. Oh well, I say false whenever I can’t reply properly to an argument so gg there. 5 cities updeclare is difficult to believe tbh, it would require a dumb opponent and exceptional fighters, and I would need to see it to believe it.