Cooper_
-
Posts
412 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Cooper_
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
23 hours ago, Leopold von Habsburg said:What do you mean @Marika, the forums have been better off with less T$ posting and keyboard warriors!
Been a minute Leopold. Hope you're well man!
Anyways, just to throw in my 2 cents. I think a lot of the want for IC content requires alliances to have goals and being willing to sacrifice political capital to achieve them. The current generation of leaders seemed to agree on a lot tbh, there isn't much meta conflict. Whatever dissent there has been against a successively downsizing sphere meta has slowly been pummeled into submission. You have to be pro-minipsheres/multipolarity (I guess now even "paperless+") in order to be taken seriously at an FA level. And don't get me wrong, this makes me very happy as it was a vision I encouraged during my tenure in TKR FA. That said, the politics of the game seems to have been reduced from an ideological conflict on the meta direction to a set of oscillating grudges and notions of competitive wars based on tiering.
The reason why I'm quoting you Leo is because that's something I had admired of T$ in the past. I never liked the forum shenanigans, but the idea that y'all would take a stance and stick with it was a good thing. Upper tier consolidation, for example. I disagreed with a lot of it, and I think you took it way too far. But it drove conflict and eventually became a tenet of the meta. Another thing is the green color warfare. There's a balance to be had between verbally abusing people and a principled ideological battle.
So bottom line is that current FA folks need to think about their priorities. Is it solely a strategic game now of friends and enemies where you're just trying to maximize the time you're on top? Or do you have a vision for the future of the game and are willing to put yourself on the line to achieve it?
-
9
-
Do y'all not have lives? You blitzed on a Friday night in Summer...
-
On 3/30/2022 at 7:10 PM, Kevanovia said:
Monthly Political Power Rankings (MPPR)
I really like this idea, and I think it could be really cool if we could get some form of anonymous poll of alliance leaders. This might be more logistically challenging, but would also give us a picture of how the current decision-markers see things going. Cheers
-
32 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:
Can you define to me what "Economic consolidation" is?
Do you mean that we've.... grown our nations?
You have to forgive us... we've had supply chain issues.
-
2
-
-
Comrades, we stand here. We die here. It has been an honor.
o7 Red
-
2
-
-
Can't we just be good with you guys being on the only relatively fair target and the desire to have a war after a while?
If I were to put myself in Morf's shoes, it'd be as simple as losing billions in infra and wanting to put it to use instead of collecting losses. We couldn't hit Backroom or Clock because they literally just rebuilt. That leaves Celestial as the only sphere left.
There's a lot that's mechanically and strategically interesting about this war even if the politics are extremely straightforward and impersonal. I look forward to seeing how each sphere deals with the cards they've been deal.
Good luck folks.
-
1
-
-
Mount Rushmore had presidents of different eras, so I think it might be fair to list the greatest of each era/generation. The order of names is my personal viewpoint on who was the most influential (not about personal liking or agreement/disagreement of actions) of each era, but it's obviously a bit subjective.
Beginning - Silent Era Ranking:
Partisan, Prefontaine, Abbas
Explanation:
I know the least about this era because it was before my time, but I was in FA long enough to hear sufficient stories to have an idea. Syndisphere was dominant for the majority of this era, defeating covenant, paragon, and paracovenant. Partisan was the FA lead and public face of The Syndicate for much of this period, and was able to get strong alliances with TKR and BK.
Prefontaine is a wildcard here since he led TEst, but the fame of the original alliances lasts to this day with like the 20th "reincarnation" of TEst being the current one we have today since its legacy is so strong. Until Papers Please, TEst was at the pinnacle of the game and a threat to nearly everyone.
Finally, Abbas was a main political rival of Partisan/T$ and their relationship was the basis of at least one of the major conflict axes in this era. His ability to work in the shadows is renowned and still was actively considered in 2021 by the FA folk of Orbis when I was doing FA 5 years later...
Silent - KF Era Ranking:
Dalinar (Infinite Citadel), Roquentin, Ripper
Explanation:
Yes, I'm TKR so you might say bias, but it's quite obvious to any outside observer that TKR dominated this era. What was once Syndisphere evolved as Obsidian Order became the center of power. The breakup of BK and TKR to form EMC and IQ might've been the most consequential set of events in the entire game's history, the impacts of this would reverberate until NPOLT. IC had led TKR from the beginning as a small alliance that overtook the likes of T$, Pantheon, UPN, etc. to become #1 and find a strong set of allies. IQ was defeated during Trail of Tiers and the trouble for TKR didn't start until well after IC stepped down.
Roquentin is another leader who was able to build his alliance from the ground up. He originally started in Umbrella, and then he moved over to lead NPO. It was a controversial move given the CN history, but NPO's characteristic tiering style was troublesome for any opponent and still sets the standard today for econ departments. While NPO lost Trail of Tiers and Ayslamic Crusade, it's new bloc IQ became the strongest power by the end of this period taking it from TKR during KF.
Ripper may seem like an unconventional choice as a leader of arrgh, but his time in CoS/Valinor proved to be quite impactful. KF was a major turning point for the entire game where the Syndi and later EMC coalition that had always won would finally lose. However, the issue was bridging the gap between Syndisphere (T$-Syndi-Pantheon) and IQ, for which CoS and Test played large roles in facilitating as well as charting out the future of the game. The concepts of a dynamic meta and minispheres would be generated here. An honorable mention here is Thrax who played a similar role.
KF - NPOLT Era:
Roquentin (note I don't think he should get much acclaim but no doubt was the most powerful at this point), Adrienne, Buorhann
Explanation:
Roquentin's role in NPOLT is plastered all over the forum. I don't think he really deserves recognition for his actions here.
Adrienne was the glue of the resistance to IQ. What began as a fractured coalition of minispheres between KETOGG, Chaos (miss you guys <3), and Rose was pushed to the limit as we were held under for 9 months straight. It wasn't a group of friends but people who had a bare level of mutual interests, and Adrienne with deft kept those folks together and our front strong until her resolve paid off with the GPWC scandal. While she had to whether KF early on, it wasn't much of her doing and she showed the world that TKR was not a pushover despite being ganged up 2-3 to 1 repeatedly. A force truly to be reckoned with, and a leader who inspired the loyalty and activity of her entire alliance.
Buorhann was also a key player in KETOGG, helping to set up Surf's Up and deal with NPOLT. However, his contributions are mostly ideological. The original KT/ET/TGH sphere was also a long-term goal to launch minispheres as the default meta. Given the direction of the game after KF and especially afterwards, it's no doubt that his ideas are influential. If you were to put a face on the movement, it'd be his.
Beyond NPOLT:
Valk, Keegoz, Ben, Tyrion
Explanation:
Coming out of NPOLT, Rose was a shell of its former self. It'd always suffered with competence issues and now it had basically no activity and was on life support after the year-long war. Valk took charge in the middle of NPOLT when Zevfer disappeared, leaving him and Mhearl to deal with the fallout. In less than a year, Rose was contending and then overtook TKR for the #1 spot. It was transformative as Rose's changed up their econ system, invested in tech, and was seen as highly competent (at least until GnR). Rose scored major victories against Quack and later HW, and is now by far the largest alliance in the game without having Alex make everyone join Rose.
Keegoz is a bit of a dark horse, but his influence is generally shadowy in the vein of his former colleague, Abbas. That said, HM, briefly HW, and later Clock under CoTL and Cataclysm were continually at the forefront of the game. They've an impressive war record and are generally the standard of competence that other spheres compare to. Keegoz helps put the people and pieces in place to enable those things to happen.
While the HM/Quack conflict axis was important, it eventually became overshadowed by a rivalry with Rose, importantly Rose and TKR. Ben had led the recovery of TKR from NPOLT and was crucial for the creation of HW which dominated the politics of 2021 with GnR and the eventual Syndi-Rose coalition (which also likely factored into their current alignment). His TKR had been at the center of the game in Quack and then later on in HW.
Tyrion's record is more mixed than the previous 3; however the list wouldn't be right if he wasn't considered. Among the power brokers in this era, Tyrion was certainly always in the room and making changes to Swamp, Oasis, and later joining HW. TI had started from scratch in the vein of Pantheon but has been pleasantly surprising in terms of competence relative to Pantheon (still a work in progress though). For any sphere moves, knowing the thoughts of Tyrion who led the major bloc of lower and mid-tier nations was important.
Overall:
Partisan, Dalinar (Infinite Citadel), Adrienne, Valk
If you only want to include one TKR:
Partisan, Roquentin, Adrienne, Valk
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Oh man, this made me cry a bit. I'm gonna miss him. It was just refreshing to be around him, and what time we had with him was truly a delight.
Eternally sheetz > Wawa, comrade.
May you Rest In Peace.
-
7
-
Still waiting for the blitz 😞
-
2
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, Thalmor said:
1 - What stops Hollywood and Celestial from doing this again in the future? What if Clock hits somebody else much later this year? Would this just happen again?
The whole point is that if spheres are noncombatants, then there isn't an issue with them continuing as noncombatants militarized or not. If HW is at war with celestial and BR/Clock want to do the same deal, I'd say go ahead. This doesn't change the meta that noncombatants can gain a bit more economic progress while sitting on the sidelines.
I'd say there's two points where this becomes an issue:
1) The same sphere/alliance groupings continually work together that stagnates political relationships
2) The treaty is held after war beyond a doubt of protecting against a demilitarized hit
12 hours ago, Thalmor said:2 - If the treaty continues past the war, what will you do?
If this were to happen, you might actually have a point. Until then, all of this is just empty rhetoric.
-
5
-
-
On 6/2/2022 at 6:41 AM, Thalmor said:
Ironically, it's moves like this treaty that are taking steps to end this multipolarity. Very ironic to see people from the same side sticking the knife in and say "oh yeah, crime is getting really bad these days."
I really hate claims like this. It’s all rhetoric and no substance. There is zero intent to fight a war together just not to be hit while demilitarized. If clock wants to 1 v 1 either sphere because of this, so be it but that doesn’t mean multipolarity is harmed by spheres maintaining their neutrality in a war that doesn’t involve them.
Unless there’s some new secret treaty or mega sphere between Celestial or HW, none of this is going to change the meta.
-
7 hours ago, Sam Cooper said:
Call this gravedigging but I am seriously pissed lol, I will just quote your response to Isjaki's rant about the same infamous treaty that got myoasis rolled where you are impressed by clockwater's military response to said treaty and hope no one repeats this mistake, and here you are defending the same thing because it's your successor doing it this time. So now the thing that endangered the idea of minispheres has ironically become the very definition of minispheres.
How has minispheres been endangered by uninvolved spheres staying uninvolved in somebody else's war? You can't just throw out non-sequiturs like "hegemony" or "minispheres in danger" just for shits and giggles. There is no great disturbance to the political sphere equilibrium from the decision to take better advantage of peacetime build slots.
What I assume is your premise is that HW and Celestial are now a single megasphere and going to fight wars together. If that were the case, I'd be up in arms about it too. It clearly isn't nor was there ever an intention from what I can see to fight together. Do you want us to just demilitarize and let Clock/BR roll us for free?
The reason why only Gorge is up here actually saying the quiet part out loud is because I think y'all are aware of how outrageous of a jump it is to go from conditional protection while at a militarization disadvantage to consolidation of spheres. After the war ends, if Clock or BR wants to duke it out with us 1 v 1 without a militarization advantage, I'd say go ahead. I know personally that TKR milcom would do anything for good, hard fight.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Azazel said:
HA! This may be how you or the top 3 alliances who combined forces *envisioned* it but I promise you a hegemonic power was definitely not everyone's elses goal or vision
And there you have it folks, we've gone full circle to claims of hegemony. The nefarious plan to not lose build slots for a few weeks is going to break minispheres!
I apologize if we did someone the disservice of not letting them get a free, unearned win on a demilitarized foe. You come in here yapping about hegemony. Please, what a joke.
Spheres interacting with each other, especially former rivals (i.e. "dynamism"), is exactly how it was imaged. Politics was meant to be interesting and new and changing versus the slog of bipolarity. This is interesting and new and changing.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Sam Cooper said:
Please find me the difference because I don't see any, let me help you with one difference though, the threats Myoasis inc was paranoid about were actually capable of taking them both down at once (which eventually they did). And that may not be the case here, clock, on paper, is outnumbered by both hw and celestial in a 1v1 esp after the departure of HoF.
The conditions you have given do not affect how it is going to be used, it only affects the duration within which it can be activated and used, changes nothing at all.I don't think HW is scared of a clock 1 v 1. Don't get me wrong it would be a hard fight, but if we're militarized I think it'd be a competitive war for both sides. The issue is if Clock (or BR) wanted to take advantage of our demilling to try to get an easy win. This isn't our war, and I don't see why we have to sit here and be fully milled and lose economically while people unrelated to either of our spheres fight it out. If Clock or BR wants to dance, then let's do it but we're not dumb enough to let them do it while we have our pants down (GnR rings bells here as a warning).
I'd also point out that the Oasis-Swamp treaty was directly in response to a war they knew was coming to try to consolidate out of their situation. Neither Celestial or HW intends to fight a war together because of this agreement. I think the context–Oasis and Swamp having a historical friendship and being part of the same sphere versus the Rose/TKR and Grumpy/T$ grudges which dominated the game for the past year–also factors into these agreements. Bitter rivals putting enmities aside to secure a political advantage is exactly how we envisioned the minispheres meta to be!
-
2
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I'm still lost as to how an agreement to safely get to a lower MMR is being held as the same as or even similar to the Swamp-Oasis bloc-wide MDP against a potential threat.
Does intent not matter anymore? Or for that matter the impact on the meta here, which is just to incentivize a shorter war among the combatants and not allow an easy dub on a demilitarized foe?
-
10
-
13
-
Just going to chime in briefly that I don't think this move is that crazy because it's simply to allow the two spheres to demilitarize instead of militarizing for the remainder of the war. Granted, this does then apply an incentive to the current combatants to keep things short (which I don't really think is a bad thing) or fall behind on tiering/econ progress.
Most folks here are acting like HW and Celestial are scared of a confrontation with Clock, but I think Clock versus either sphere would be a good war if both spheres are militarized. I doubt either sphere feels threatened such that they need another ally like the Swamp-Oasis treaty; instead this is just to allow both spheres to find an economic advantage with lower MMR. That's how it's been marketed internally to me by my gov, and I honestly doubt T$/Rose or the rest of HW feels any different about it.
Personally, would be happy to see any of the three spheres get into a war because I think any of the matchups would be fun to watch.
-
4
-
13
-
-
10 hours ago, hidude45454 said:
Thanks! Took a data science class about a year ago but this is the first time I'm applying some things from it outside it (plus a few additional things I picked up).
Yeah, admittedly translating this directly to two dimensions misses a bit of information, but I think it's mostly okay for the purposes of entertainment. Though, as an example if you bump it up to 5 features or so which captures about 70% of the variance, then the clustering looks a bit more like this:
And for k-means it's using Euclidean distances.
Cool man! I’m studying bioinformatics and focus on machine learning. If you ever want to chat or something, reach out!
I really appreciate you taking a more rigorous approach to your analyses, and thanks for the 5 PC graph!
-
On 5/21/2022 at 9:07 PM, hidude45454 said:
FOR PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT THE QUIZ AND DON'T CARE ABOUT THE ANALYSIS:
https://alliance-personality-quiz.herokuapp.com/
The TL;DR:
13 questions to give you an estimate of your top 5 and bottom 5 most/least similar alliances, maybe useful for players looking to join an alliance! 4 of those questions are based on my rough assessment of each alliance, and 1 is based on low-tier raiding rates (will cover both in detail below), so feel free to exclude those questions if you want. This is only semi-scientific so please treat as primarily entertainment
Alliances Counted:
All the alliances that I contacted were in the top 50 or training alliances of alliances in the top 50 (I separated training aas from main aas).
Alliances that got back to me on my questionnaire (thank you to the respondents!):
Rose, The Knights Radiant, The Syndicate, The Immortals, Cataclysm, The Fighting Pacifists, Eclipse, The Commonwealth, Bourbon Street, Grumpy Old Bastards, Guardian, Aurora, Carthago, Terminus Est, Weebunism, The Hand of Fate, The Legion, The Wei, Black Knights, Soldiers of Liberty, Dark Brotherhood, House Stark, Waffle House, Camelot, Name Withheld, Order of the White Rose, The Dead Rabbits, United Purple Nations, The Enterprise, The Elites, Federated States of Orbis, Serpentis, The Armed Peacekeepers, Arrgh, Farkistan, Church Of Atom, Global Alliance & Treaty Organization, Polaris, Hogwarts, Unforgiven Legion, United Socialist Nations, Yarr, The Federation, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Respublica Romana, Genesis, Sanctuary, Morningstar, Oblivion, Apollo, Otaku Shougaku, The Mortals, Convent of Atom, The Circus, The Cosmonauts, Daedalus, The Hive
Pending alliances:
None at the moment!
Declined alliances:
Advanced Syndicalist Mechanics
This is a running quiz, meaning I will constantly be adding/modifying alliances and alliance results, so if you would like your alliance featured or would like your alliance values changed please send me a message or DM (I will include any alliances regardless of rank!) If you would like your final alliance description to be changed, please contact me as well! Alliance responses will be kept confidential.
Methodology:
13 questions were chosen based on general traits and descriptions you may recognize each specific alliance for, including around areas of basic info, structure, community, and competence. I will provide a description of each question/trait below! 7 of those questions were picked based on factual information from each alliance, and the other 6 were directly taken from questions sent to an IA gov member, close contact, or leader in each alliance:
The structure of the quiz was directly inspired from The Official Knights Radiant Order Quiz (AKA: the thing you take to get into TKR) and tl;dr no quiz site on the market had a way to set up a quiz like this on their own site so I legit just coded it and made my own site rofl. (I hope it looks okay)
Potential downsides: some people may prioritize certain traits more than others, and that wasn't accounted for, but that would probably take a lot of additional effort to factor in. I will do it if people request it enough though. Some people also may prefer a Likert scale over a 100-point scale, but too bad :serious:
Question/Trait 1: Size
How it was measured: Each alliance was given a score averaged from its score ranking and its membership count ranking to give equal weight to both (this was done pre-militarization), and this score was compared to all other values.
Potential downsides: This is just a heuristic and not any official measurement. Since main aas/training aas/extensions were counted separately, there may be some fuzziness with membership/score counts possibly combining between them.
Question/Trait 2: Age
How it was measured: The age of the alliance was calculated and compared to the age of other alliances.
Potential downsides: Different people may perceive what "old" and "new" are differently depending on stuff like how long they've been playing the game.
Question/Trait 3: Competency [HIDUDE-BIASED]
How it was measured: Each alliance was given a grade based on my assessment of their general war performance, and this grade was converted into a score.
Potential downsides: My assessment is obviously biased in this aspect (although I think it's pretty good), and also the grade can't perfectly be converted into a score.
Question/Trait 4: Profile [HIDUDE-BIASED]
How it was measured: Each alliance was given an estimated value based on my assessment of how public or visible the alliance tries to be and/or is made so by the community.
Potential downsides: Same as above, my perception of profile will be different than other people's.
Question/Trait 5: Exclusitivity, Question/Trait 6: Maturity, Question/Trait 7: Technology, Question/Trait 8: RP, Question/Trait 9: Activity, Question/Trait 10: Community
How it was measured: These were directly copied from the responses alliance representatives gave me.
Potential downsides: Due to me keeping responses anonymous, alliances may not have had a perfect baseline to compare their responses to, and also may have felt the urge to inflate certain values to make themselves look more desirable, although I can't know to what degree. Still, I think people did the best job they could answering these.
Question/Trait 11: War Rate [HIDUDE-BIASED]
How it was measured: I counted the number of offensive wars each alliance has declared in the past two years and translated that into a rough assessment of how they prefer to fight.
Potential downsides: Same as above, my perception of war will be different than other people's.
Question/Trait 12: FA Leadership [HIDUDE-BIASED]
How it was measured: I gave a value based on my assessment of each alliances' major/macro/micro status and how much they participated in FA discussions.
Potential downsides: Same as above, my perception of FA presence will be different than other people's, especially since I obviously don't have a full picture here.
Question/Trait 13: Raid Rate [LOW-TIER RAIDING]
How it was measured: I wrote a script (pre-war) to measure every alliance's number of wars C10 and below for the past month, and counted the number of members C10 and under to get a number of wars declared per person:
This rate was compared to other rates and given a value.
Potential downsides: As you can see, a lot of big alliances have 0s, primarily because they don't have any members C10 or below. This is why I made the low-tier raiding question optional in my quiz.
Percent Similarity Calculations:
For all % similarities I displayed, I calculated the Euclidean distance between a user's responses and the responses of each alliance, and divided by the max possible Euclidean distance to get a "dissimilarity" score, which I could convert into a similarity percentage. (Not the most scientific way of doing it, but there are a bunch of different methods of doing it too that I considered not applicable, although feel free to suggest another way of doing it)
Alliance Comparison:
I decided to take my data one step further and compare alliances with each other to see the most similar and least alliances to each alliance. In order to do this, I also created separate categories of classification for comparison:
General: includes all alliance traits.
Alliance Structure: how an alliance's government is set up and how the alliance runs in general. For example, democracies may run differently than dictatorships, and older alliances may run different than newer ones. Includes traits #1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 13.
Impact: how much of an impact an alliance strives to have on the game as a whole. More impactful alliances generally seek to have a greater public image or FA sector and/or can punch above their weight during war. Includes traits #1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, and 13.
Community: what type of community each alliance has. Based on the responses I got from representatives. Includes traits #5, 6, 8, 9, and 10.
Competence: the military or political ability of each alliance. Includes traits #3, 4, 5, 9, and 11.
Seniority: the age and experience of each alliance. For example, more senior alliances are older in age (duh), may have more mature members, and focus more on non-PnW discussion, and vice versa for newer alliances. Includes traits #2, 6, and 10.
You can see how each alliance stacked up here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FerD_fKtu-5kdxDGlTYRo23eAWmyM2VdS09mFsW-LaQ/edit#gid=822663440
Grouping Alliances:
Finally, I decided to group all alliances as a whole for fun. This was done through a process called dimensionality reduction so that I could reduce a 13d question space into a 2d space easily interpretable by humans.
First, I processed question data and performed PCA on it.
The tl;dr of what PCA does is it uses your original responses as "weights" in order to determine a combined set of important generalized features of each alliance. Here is a percentage graph of how significant each feature was in the final calculation:
And here's how each question "weight" or factored into each of the first three features:
Finally, in order to arrange all the alliances into identifiable groups, I picked an optimal number of groupings to use by processing the data using an elbow method for clustering:
Using that, I decided to create about 4 separate groups. Using the chart generated from PCA, I clustered into 4 groups using K-means clustering in order to get this final chart:
Here, you can see some interesting results and kind of see how each alliance got grouped, even though some questions may not have covered those traits directly!
Light Blue: this seems to be a grouping of generally higher-tier or more exclusive older alliances.
Pink: this seems to be a grouping of mostly lower-tier or mid-tier alliances that I can only graciously describe as "mid" lmao. Most of them belong to Backrooms/Johnsons/HM.
Dark Blue: this seems to be a grouping of mostly lower-tier alliances that are either fairly new/low-profile or training alliances.
Red: this seems to be a grouping of mostly mid-tier alliances that often have long histories or who are fairly established and well-known in-game.
Final Thoughts
I certainly learned a lot from this entire process, both from the coding aspect and finding out more about each alliance! Thanks to all the people who read through the entire way, and I hope results are to people's liking
Again, please contact me if you would like your alliance values added or changed!
Changelog
5/22/22:
-Fixed descriptions for WH, TI, TEst, and USN
-Obfuscated code
-Added shareable embed/image options for Discord or Slack
-Added Hive
Are you taking a data science class?
I like the effort you put in to attempt this as an unsupervised learning problem. I’d be a bit careful here though because your first two principal components only capture about 40% of variance from what I can see.
Also, just for curiosity sake what was your distance metric for k-means?
-
5 hours ago, HannaH said:
Knock knock! So excited for this.
Where's the clause that gives me an exception for spying you and @Kiloist II?
-
23 hours ago, hidude45454 said:
I think it could be be somewhat misleading reading a log graph, but to my understanding I don't think it messes with the data since you can always unlog it. (And it's with a base of 10)
Here is the original data, I cleaned up a few data points in order to make it look kind of prettier (I think)
Here the best line of fit is kind of linear, which I suspected was the case if a line of fit on a log graph was logarithmic (I can manually choose which type of line I want.) I've used numpy/sk-learn/scipy a little bit before for class stuff so agree that it would probably be good practice, but figured Google Sheets would probably be a bit more accessible and was also feeling a bit lazy at the moment I guess 😜
I don’t know how much linear algebra experience you have but a line of best fit will always be linear. Other fits will require a different regression. You use the log-linear plot to show data that spans multiple orders of magnitude easily, I.e an exponential function would look linear. I take back the logistic argument though, seeing the full distribution, this looks pretty linear itself just with a bit of variance from the outliers.
-
@hidude45454 I’d be interested to see what the data looks like before you took the logarithm of the y axis.
It looks like it might be logistic (your line of best fit isn’t linear) although I don’t imagine the google sheets graphs you’re using has support for such a regression. Would recommend checking out some python packages like numpy, sklearn, and scipi if you’re interested in the data manipulation and learning more from it. R and matlab are also useful options too if you have access to them!
-
- Popular Post
10 minutes ago, Mars said:I dont know what youre talking about with the whole 'did a lot for the pnw community'. you probably mean locutus, and my opinion is that it killed player engagement, and messed with whatever equal footing everyone was on before it.
lets remember borg charged for the bot and built a few alliances on the back of it. i have yet to feel any of the 'positive impacts' of this bot, in fact i think the game will be way better off with NO automation allowed. It kind of baffles me how the game admin lets what amounts to third party cheating software slide, or even encourages it.
I do agree that the perspective is different when you are of have been on the other side of the fence, indulging in all the upsides of that god awful thing even existing.
I think theres a point to be made that part of the game and what separated those who would go through all the trouble and those who wont is those 'tedious' clicks you need to make in order to achieve a goal.
Theres also a point to be made that you should not be at a disadvantage in a game if you chose not to use scripts.
This is totally unfair and untrue. Automation has made the game more accessible and easier. If anything, it has leveled the playing field since now basically any alliance can access basic tools. And I think we’re at a point for the first time ever that competence refers to more than like the top 10 alliances.
It’s also super disrespectful to the dozens of other coders who have given hours to their alliances to create native tech. Creating this stuff isn’t always easy nor is it quick. Shame on you tbh.
-
1
-
8
-
1 hour ago, Thalmor said:
TL:DR - Use the forums more because people are getting value (information and entertainment) out of the walls of text that come with passionate and energetic political discussion.
Citation?
-
1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:
- Discord diplomacy vs forum discourse
- Coalitions of convenience vs treaty warfare (or bloc warfare)
- The "Fight for fun" mentality vs political pragmatism
- An OOC-centric view vs an IC-centric view
Just want to point out that I think ideological disagreements are good and healthy for the game because we should be having discourse from multiple viewpoints. One of the things I've always appreciated about T$, whether you agree or disagree, is that y'all are willing to take a stance and stick with it for the long-haul. That isn't something I personally want to see the lost because more principled actors in the game means more interesting and diverse politics (*coughs in Rose's direction*).
The other question, and the one I feel is more at stake here, is how you go about doing it, and it feels like especially after you left Partisan that things have gotten nastier and exhausting to deal with it. Adam nailed the point that you splitting the middle expertly, between pushing your points but also stopping before you got too inflammatory. Issue is that basically nobody is going to be as good at being you as you.
And as I said in a previous post, I don't think it's just y'all but also the environment you're in. It's one thing to have eumir be eumir on the forums and then have you making tounge-in-cheek "friend" comments. It's another to have a half-dozen syndi gov and ex-gov relentlessly attacking you in the RON public chat. I don't need to be called an idiot 20 times before I can finish typing a sentence to know that y'all have valid disagreements with me. Having been both your ally and enemy, I can say it sucks on either end.
Obviously, this isn't everything at issue here, but I'm trying to leave the comments on current politics to the active politicians.
-
4
-
Aren't you guys on vacation?
in Orbis Central
Posted
To echo on this, I'm long past the point where I've gotten enjoyment from the game or where I have had time to play between school, job applications, irl stuff, etc.
I only maintain a nation because it's slightly better to be a 100/100 farm to help the TKR community than to delete my nation altogether. It gives me an excuse to be on slack with all of the friends I've made over the past few years and a way in which I can contribute without having to spend time I don't have on the game. People can say whatever shit they want about my VMing every war since I "left" the game, but I think it speaks to the strength of our community that I preferred to stick around in some barebones capacity than just simply delete and leave. I didn't want to leave my community even if I didn't have the time or desire for PnW.
This is also a true for a few of our other nations who are perma-VMed and we keep them on the alliance as a testament to their previous service to our community. If you look through the names, these are folks like smith, deus, and legoboy. People who have truly left their mark on TKR and even on Orbis. By VMing, they get to stay a part of our community and contribute in slack/forums without wasting time they don't have to spare.
I'd simply ask for y'all to respect how we as a TKR community have decided to handle these situations. Our community is important to all of us, even to folks like me who are mostly checked out. I hope this also provides context on why the OP was so frustrating for many of us.