Jump to content

War Stats


Sketchy
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Starbuck said:

Lol you were the biggest doomsdayer at the time.

Webp.net-resizeimage.png.57c6efdb0b7e3c1ca71156515fffd14a.png

This the post I'm referring to. Also yeah, my bad, it was Buorhann that said IQ could defeat the world if they had good activity. What a silly thing for him to think, all things considered. I knew from the start that IQ was a shit sphere and that they suck.

I almost want to jump on IQ's side and assist them with organization just to show you the extent of their ridiculous potential.

While they are lackluster at the moment, let's just remember who's sitting there doing nothing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean Buor probably isn't wrong, IQ would be a monster if everyone was active and coordinated. Obviously thats a pretty big qualification, and we see time and again what happens when the activity isn't there. And I don't know that it ever will be, at least at their current numbers. Increasing activity levels isn't an easy thing to do if the interest from members just isn't there, though at some point its worth asking how much you are getting from the taxes vs the higher efficiency levels if you just cut down to a smaller core.

  • Upvote 6

Archduke Tyrell, Lord of Highgarden, Lord Paramount of the Reach, Warden of the South, Breaker of Forums.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I mean Buor probably isn't wrong, IQ would be a monster if everyone was active and coordinated. Obviously thats a pretty big qualification, and we see time and again what happens when the activity isn't there. And I don't know that it ever will be, at least at their current numbers. Increasing activity levels isn't an easy thing to do if the interest from members just isn't there, though at some point its worth asking how much you are getting from the taxes vs the higher efficiency levels if you just cut down to a smaller core.

This was literally what sketchy and I did to turn Rose into not shit. Tax then cut loose the inactives. Lead by example when it comes to activity.

1 hour ago, Queen M said:

@durmij Christmas super crazy early this year?

I mean, being invited is the best CB.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I mean Buor probably isn't wrong, IQ would be a monster if everyone was active and coordinated. Obviously thats a pretty big qualification, and we see time and again what happens when the activity isn't there. And I don't know that it ever will be, at least at their current numbers. Increasing activity levels isn't an easy thing to do if the interest from members just isn't there, though at some point its worth asking how much you are getting from the taxes vs the higher efficiency levels if you just cut down to a smaller core.

Not trying to be arrogant when I say this, but I know I'm right in my assessment.  Activity is the foundation to any alliance's efficiency.  If IQ was 75% active (and were properly taught how to use their MAPs), they'd absolutely destroy any opposition with their numbers.

This has been shown time and time again.  However, IQ has some weird strats and builds going on.  Nuke project becomes mandatory real soon in a BK members growth for example, which just promotes laziness and fosters a lack of awareness to wars/MAP usage.

 

There's literally no reason for KT to be doing as well as they are.  They were hit by 2/3 alliances that have a much stronger tiering cohesion than them.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Karl VII

Eh the damage charts are always tilted towards our enemies in the beginning simply because of the fact that we have a small upper tier.

I expect us to close in during the 2nd and 3rd wave.

Or the 4th or 5th.

You know the deal.

Pwdo1yO.jpg

Edited by Karl VII
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Not trying to be arrogant when I say this, but I know I'm right in my assessment.  Activity is the foundation to any alliance's efficiency.  If IQ was 75% active (and were properly taught how to use their MAPs), they'd absolutely destroy any opposition with their numbers.

This has been shown time and time again.  However, IQ has some weird strats and builds going on.  Nuke project becomes mandatory real soon in a BK members growth for example, which just promotes laziness and fosters a lack of awareness to wars/MAP usage.

 

There's literally no reason for KT to be doing as well as they are.  They were hit by 2/3 alliances that have a much stronger tiering cohesion than them.

KT is a good AA, everyone just shits on them because they're edgy and autistic.

I'm very happy they're doing well because it means the triggered folks have no ground to stand on again.

DEUS VULT

IQ really does suck. Cornerstone was never anything good and NPO has been lackluster/an underachiever since day 1. BK has fallen from grace. GotG is ok.

It will never change.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to think that these stats were made by Sketchy in a lab...like so

ukdHPZB.png

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1

IYT09l4.png

Ex-Archduke of Defence for BK

3 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

@Lelouch Vi Britannia - BK needs you, but they really don't deserve you.  Thanks for the dankness.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, durmij said:

This was literally what sketchy and I did to turn Rose into not shit. Tax then cut loose the inactives. Lead by example when it comes to activity.

I agree that smaller and more active is the way to go, even if it sacrifices score. But it also makes IQs true potential somewhat hard to gauge, because it's hard to tell just how many people would pick up their activity and how many would need to be kicked. 

The fact that no real efforts have been made there suggest to me that either they really don't care, or it would require kicking a huge portion of their members. 

All of which is to say, IQs theoretical potential with their mass of members is high, their current strength is a paper tiger, and where they would actually land when they get rid of inactives is something of an enigma. You could get an estimate from the actual ingame activity, though it doesn't help to have active members who aren't blitz active or don't pick up as necessary in war.

Either way it would be better than it is now in terms of effectiveness though.

Edited by Mikey

Archduke Tyrell, Lord of Highgarden, Lord Paramount of the Reach, Warden of the South, Breaker of Forums.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With results like these, when does it come to an end?

I fret my only experience with war in my short time does not involve these scales, and in truth, i cannot even say i fully understand the severity of what this information means.

I do not suppose anyone would be kind enough to elaborate for a newcomer?

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Lairah said:

With results like these, when does it come to an end?

I fret my only experience with war in my short time does not involve these scales, and in truth, i cannot even say i fully understand the severity of what this information means.

I do not suppose anyone would be kind enough to elaborate for a newcomer?

Step 1: Create a Discord account. Everybody relevant communicates over Discord in this game. If you don't have a Discord, you just can't play P&W.

Now, as for your question, the only real thing the numbers says is that the non-IQ side is fighting more effectively (for now, at least). This war has only been going on for about 60 hours now, so it's still very, very early. This is a global war, and global wars last for about a month to 2 months. The last global war, Trail of Tiers, lasted 2 months and a half.

It's too early to declare a winner. Non-IQ is has the momentum, but IQ is going to dig in and be very stubborn. Damages done now don't really mean anything because, in a global war, all considerable for infrastructure is generally cast aside. So, you would only use this numbers to determine which side is generally being more effective.

Hope this gives you a better understanding of global wars.

  • Upvote 5

new_forum_sig_2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Thalmor said:

Step 1: Create a Discord account. Everybody relevant communicates over Discord in this game. If you don't have a Discord, you just can't play P&W.

Now, as for your question, the only real thing the numbers says is that the non-IQ side is fighting more effectively (for now, at least). This war has only been going on for about 60 hours now, so it's still very, very early. This is a global war, and global wars last for about a month to 2 months. The last global war, Trail of Tiers, lasted 2 months and a half.

It's too early to declare a winner. Non-IQ is has the momentum, but IQ is going to dig in and be very stubborn. Damages done now don't really mean anything because, in a global war, all considerable for infrastructure is generally cast aside. So, you would only use this numbers to determine which side is generally being more effective.

Hope this gives you a better understanding of global wars.

It does, thank you for the brief but informative elucidation, Thalmor.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol. The wars barely started and our warring strats are different to yours. It'd be nicer if someone gave a full statistical analysis rather than looking at infra damages. Ah well. I should probably stop expecting objectivity here heh. 

Edited by Shadowthrone
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Thalmor said:

Step 1: Create a Discord account. Everybody relevant communicates over Discord in this game. If you don't have a Discord, you just can't play P&W.

Now, as for your question, the only real thing the numbers says is that the non-IQ side is fighting more effectively (for now, at least). This war has only been going on for about 60 hours now, so it's still very, very early. This is a global war, and global wars last for about a month to 2 months. The last global war, Trail of Tiers, lasted 2 months and a half.

It's too early to declare a winner. Non-IQ is has the momentum, but IQ is going to dig in and be very stubborn. Damages done now don't really mean anything because, in a global war, all considerable for infrastructure is generally cast aside. So, you would only use this numbers to determine which side is generally being more effective.

Hope this gives you a better understanding of global wars.

Wait a second. I see the sentiment that non-IQ, KT in particular, is outperforming, despite being dogpiled, etc. etc. Positivity is good, but let's not get too carried away here. First of all, I'm fairly certain that we decided that Sheepy's stat-tracker was shit 2 wars ago. Here's an example if you don't remember.

unknown.png

Second, when have we gauged war progress by infra damage this early on into a war, anyways? Here are the troop counts in the relevant (posing the most threat to IQ) ranges for some non-IQ alliances.

h81tsee.pngQ2uMnpc.png2T99Hkd.pngjAiD9ES.png0a5Xzak.pngxPdwdNn.png

We're screwed, guys. Better surrender and disband.

Here's NPO, if you were interested.

hTP7HUC.png

Someone please hit NPO.

  • Upvote 4

[insert quote here]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, LeotheGreat said:

Haha wasn’t even meant to be edgy. But IQ will need to drag this out to balence the differential just like last war, perhaps longer. 

Never go full Alpha

  • Upvote 2

Dec 26 18:48:22 <JacobH[Arrgh]>    God your worse the grealind >.>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2018 at 6:36 AM, Starbuck said:

Lol you were the biggest doomsdayer at the time.

Webp.net-resizeimage.png.57c6efdb0b7e3c1ca71156515fffd14a.png

This the post I'm referring to. Also yeah, my bad, it was Buorhann that said IQ could defeat the world if they had good activity. What a silly thing for him to think, all things considered. I knew from the start that IQ was a shit sphere and that they suck.

It's pretty clear what you're implying in the post, particularly because you quoted yourself. So unless you were just shitposting, you were wrong. IQ didn't come in and secure a hegemony because of the power vacuum. Orbis isn't full of fluffy pixel hugger alliances and weak apologists. I mean you called KT a neutral alliance in the same thread. Many layers of wrong.

I knew exactly what post you were referring too.

The initial post was a general statement about what tends to happen when power vacuums exist. It was not directed at IQ specifically. That should be obvious considering at the time neither sphere had split up and it was a concern regardless of which split up.

The second post was literally in response to further consolidation by IQ and open intention to continue to be a stagnant force, after EMC had split, if I recall correctly.

As for the claim no one has built a hegemony, the split was, in scale with how politics moves in this game, not very long ago. There is still time lmfao. Sue me if I'm not cynical, but the history of the game gives plenty of reason to be. 

As for the claim that Orbis isn't full of fluffy pixel hugger alliances, I'll concede I was being hyperbolic in that statement, but yes, many alliances still act in that fashion, are scared to move, or only do so when prompted by people who its in their best interests to concede to rather than rebel from.

Also, at the time, KT was neutral. I was using neutral in the political sense, as in not heavily affiliated with one side or the other, not in the GPA sense. Anything else is just me making fun of KT which I do on a fairly regular basis lmfao.

Ultimately, all of that is irrelevant, since I still supported the split, just for different reasons from you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as the rest of it goes, I never said IQ was unbeatable, I stated that EMC could not have beaten IQ in a conventional war, assuming they (IQ) were at least as competent as they were in the previous one. This war isn't against EMC, alliances like Bad Company, IoM, Roz Wei, House Stark, KT, Ragnarok are all centered lower and as such have better tiering matchups to fight IQ.

Additionally, IQ has had 2 mergers and bled some people in the process as mergers tend to, and lost a few peripherals. Lord into CS in particular seems to have been a fairly big blow, as Lordaeron was one of the better fighters in the last war, and under CS leadership (I'm assuming that is the reason) they are not performing nearly as well. Even with all that, I'm not convinced an EMC vs IQ war as they are now would result in an EMC victory. Simply put, Guardian would have no targets after 1 round, as would 1/3 of pantheon and around 1/5 of TKR/Rose. In all likelihood it would be Rose and TKR vs all of IQ after 1/2 rounds and they'd eventually get swarmed in that scenario. Obviously, it still hinges on IQs perfomance, but being bad does not completely negate your possibility of winning if your advantage is significant enough.

Anyway, hopefully I've clarified my position. I would avoid trying to search for hidden implications in things I say as I usually just say what I mean.

 

 

 

Edited by Sketchy
  • Upvote 5

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Lol. The wars barely started and our warring strats are different to yours.

Tell me again about IQ's many victories.

Also, did Cerberus throw one punch and then just fall immediately asleep?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cazaric said:

Tell me again about IQ's many victories.

Also, did Cerberus throw one punch and then just fall immediately asleep?

It has nothing to do victories as much as looking at the total monetary value of loss stemming from the war. Our strategy of using aircrafts for example, doesn't do much in terms of infra damage and hence the damage values seem less, while damaging other parts of a nation. As Dio Brando stated above, I'm more curious looking at all the military stats rather than this myopic infra value padding and then accordingly comment or take a view of where we stand. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Lol. The wars barely started and our warring strats are different to yours. It'd be nicer if someone gave a full statistical analysis rather than looking at infra damages. Ah well. I should probably stop expecting objectivity here heh. 

 

29 minutes ago, Them said:

Wait a second. I see the sentiment that non-IQ, KT in particular, is outperforming, despite being dogpiled, etc. etc. Positivity is good, but let's not get too carried away here. First of all, I'm fairly certain that we decided that Sheepy's stat-tracker was shit 2 wars ago. Here's an example if you don't remember.

Second, when have we gauged war progress by infra damage this early on into a war, anyways? Here are the troop counts in the relevant (posing the most threat to IQ) ranges for some non-IQ alliances.

I literally just posted the stats as they are recorded. I didn't remark on them, boast, call anyone shit, or anything of the sort.

The fact you are trying to complain about objectivity is preposterous lmfao.

I plan on posting regular updates as the war carries on, so if the damages are flipped, they'll show in your favor won't they?

@Shadowthrone I'm not sure you know what the definition of objective is. But since you asked, I'll make a deeper "statistical analysis" just for you.

  • Upvote 2

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.