Jump to content

War Stats


Sketchy
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Maverick0984 said:

Not to be a pain but Fark's infra losses seem quite a bit off. Just using the stat tracker it should be half what you are claiming.

Also, the 11B you state is higher than the value we started with. Fark is not rebuying infra.

Not trying to be a dick, is there something I am missing as it doesn't make sense on 2 levels as is.

7007149d6edb3552147e169d9c1e450f.jpg 

Chief Financial Officer of The Syndicate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Justin076 said:

7007149d6edb3552147e169d9c1e450f.jpg 

That's cute and all but I am literally basing my question off of the P&W stat tracker.  Not making stuff up.

The spreadsheet itself doesn't make sense as it claims we have lost more infra that we had ?

Edited by Maverick0984
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maverick0984 said:

Not to be a pain but Fark's infra losses seem quite a bit off. Just using the stat tracker it should be half what you are claiming.

Also, the 11B you state is higher than the value we started with. Fark is not rebuying infra.

Not trying to be a dick, is there something I am missing as it doesn't make sense on 2 levels as is.

The stat tracker also says you used 9,999,999.99 alum yesterday, we all know the stat tracker is always super wrong

I agree that 11B is a bit too much, I would say something like 8-9B, but could be

Edited by Micchan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Micchan said:

The stat tracker also says you used 9,999,999.99 alum yesterday, we all know the stat tracker is always super wrong

I agree that 11B is a bit too much, I would say something like 8-9B, but could be

The stat tracker has always been accurate on infra cost. The others it's been sketchy on but yeah. The infra damage is half of what Frawley is saying it is. 

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know Frawley used his own formula rather than the stat tracker for determining the infra costs. 

Idk what it is though, it does seem a bit off.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sketchy said:

As far as I know Frawley used his own formula rather than the stat tracker for determining the infra costs. 

Idk what it is though, it does seem a bit off.

Fark is half of ifnra damage lost
Alpha is 4 bil less than displayed

Frawley's stats are also showing a few bil more damage dealt to EMC than has actually been dealt.

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Micchan said:

The stat tracker also says you used 9,999,999.99 alum yesterday, we all know the stat tracker is always super wrong

I agree that 11B is a bit too much, I would say something like 8-9B, but could be

8-9B in damage dealt maybe.  Here you go:

Fark Total
Value of Infrastructure Destroyed: 8,404,463,538.40
Value of Infrastructure Lost: 5,806,877,978.75

 

43 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

As far as I know Frawley used his own formula rather than the stat tracker for determining the infra costs. 

Idk what it is though, it does seem a bit off.

TBH, even if he used his own formula, it should be consistent throughout, and thus, relatively accurate AA to AA.

When he has us losing more than we had to begin with though...hopefully he just forgot to carry a 1 somewhere.

Edited by Maverick0984
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Frawley

I'm going to have a look at my formula now, and perhaps try something a bit different.

For reference I described how my infra formula worked a few pages ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Frawley
5 hours ago, Maverick0984 said:

That's cute and all but I am literally basing my question off of the P&W stat tracker.  Not making stuff up.

The spreadsheet itself doesn't make sense as it claims we have lost more infra that we had ?

I'm not sure what you mean, the spreadsheet says you have lost 548,500 infra. On the 17th of March you had according to the stat tracker.

Infrastructure:    1,268,797.40

How has more been lost than you started with?

For reference the Stat Tracker for yesterday says: 608,996.50 that plus your losses (I don't have all of them in there yet for the last 36 hours) = 1,157,496.5 which is not that far off what you had when the war started.

Edited by Frawley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Frawley said:

unknown.png

Tomorrow planning on doing a major refresh, will remove all AA's no longer participating and hopefully have AA v AA numbers for you all.

So let me see if i understand this.

You set steel at 5k and Alu at 3k, I do not know about your Side but not many of us have had to buy steel during this war so its not cost us 5k/3k ppu i know that much, this seems to be your way of buffing your damage done in terms of cost, kind of silly and cheap trick really.

Now for your infra costs

BK lost 1,029,269 infra at a cost of 12,641,678,492 = on avg 12,282 for each infra level
NPO lost 1,018,951 infra at a cost of 5,961,488,168 = on avg 5,850 for each infra level
BC lost 191,317 infra at a cost of 5,450,038,707 = on avg 28,486 for each infra level

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Really?, I mean most of our nations had the same infra levels as most of yours 1500 to 2000 in each city but it seems our infra levels cost us six times more than it cost NPO, even poor BK has to pay over twice the cost of infra as NPO?. would love to know how you worked out infra costs really i would.


**** Thank you for your hard work in posting the states, just when i see things like the above it just makes me think you are changing the infra cost and such to look better for your side like a pr display.

Edited by MoonShadow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, MoonShadow said:

So let me see if i understand this.

You set steel at 5k and Alu at 3k, I do not know about your Side but not many of us have had to buy steel during this war so its not cost us 5k/3k ppu i know that much, this seems to be your way of buffing your damage done in terms of cost, kind of silly and cheap trick really.

Now for your infra costs

BK lost 1,029,269 infra at a cost of 12,641,678,492 = on avg 12,282 for each infra level
NPO lost 1,018,951 infra at a cost of 5,961,488,168 = on avg 5,850 for each infra level
BC lost 191,317 infra at a cost of 5,450,038,707 = on avg 28,486 for each infra level

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Really?, I mean most of our nations had the same infra levels as most of yours 1500 to 2000 in each city but it seems our infra levels cost us six times more than it cost NPO, even poor BK has to pay over twice the cost of infra as NPO?. would love to know how you worked out infra costs really i would.


**** Thank you for your hard work in posting the states, just when i see things like the above it just makes me think you are changing the infra cost and such to look better for your side like a pr display.

Lose infra one time, rebuy back up to 700, lose it again. That's how it'd be pushed down so much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ryleh said:

Lose infra one time, rebuy back up to 700, lose it again. That's how it'd be pushed down so much. 

So he adds the amount of infra lost, but not the cost for infra below 700, guess that's one way to high the cost, sure 700 infra from level 10 is only 624k but then do that over what 100 nations of NPO are under 1k infra, that still works out at at 62.4m and if they are having to do this every day thats what 875m over 14 days? dont know, i think if your going to add a cost then add the cost, dont cheery pick the range that better fits what you want people to believe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MoonShadow said:

So he adds the amount of infra lost, but not the cost for infra below 700, guess that's one way to high the cost, sure 700 infra from level 10 is only 624k but then do that over what 100 nations of NPO are under 1k infra, that still works out at at 62.4m and if they are having to do this every day thats what 875m over 14 days? dont know, i think if your going to add a cost then add the cost, dont cheery pick the range that better fits what you want people to believe. 

I get the limits to an extent.  Hitting the API for this purpose is imperfect in the best of cases.  He isn't just arbitrarily not including it.  To be as accurate as possible, he would need to update the sample rate to at least once an hour and that's not very feasible. Or the War API specifically would need to just include more information.

I'd much rather Sheepy offloaded to a replica read only DB that developers were able to access for stats/reporting.  If Sheepy doesn't want to take the time for stats, fine, but let the users.  The API isn't enough for overall stats. I understand this is a pipe dream though.

I am not trying to call anyone out here, I just want accurate data for now and the future.

Edited by Maverick0984
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Frawley said:

I'm not sure what you mean, the spreadsheet says you have lost 548,500 infra. On the 17th of March you had according to the stat tracker.

Infrastructure:    1,268,797.40

How has more been lost than you started with?

For reference the Stat Tracker for yesterday says: 608,996.50 that plus your losses (I don't have all of them in there yet for the last 36 hours) = 1,157,496.5 which is not that far off what you had when the war started.

Was talking $ value, sorry, not quantity.

I can pull our stuff after Easter, etc, to show what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maverick0984 said:

I get the limits to an extent.  Hitting the API for this purpose is imperfect in the best of cases.  He isn't just arbitrarily not including it.  To be as accurate as possible, he would need to update the sample rate to at least once an hour and that's not very feasible. Or the War API specifically would need to just include more information.

I'd much rather Sheepy offloaded to a replica read only DB that developers were able to access for stats/reporting.  If Sheepy doesn't want to take the time for stats, fine, but let the users.  The API isn't enough for overall stats. I understand this is a pipe dream though.

I am not trying to call anyone out here, I just want accurate data for now and the future.

i would love to see accurate data, the things that bug me are things such as placing the price of steel at 5k ppu, he did this as it would make those winning look worst off, but i can tell you this much my alliance has not had to buy steel and it damn well has not cost us 5000 ppu, so to use that in order to make out total damage done look bad is laughable to those who know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cheedows said:

Negrwqd.png

Yes, the stats are making those winning look worse off. 

BC is totally winning their fights! Its only cause tanks they are negative stupid.

Edited by LeotheGreat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LeotheGreat said:

BC is totally winning their fights! Its only cause tanks they are negative stupid.

Leo, you really need to control your bloc-mates. Fixing the stats to make themselves look good is a pretty heinous offense. 

Think of all the poor people who totally didn't buy tons of steel on the market no sir whose wars are totally ruined because NPO cooked the books!

Rw5HBiQ.jpg

Edited by TheNG
  • Upvote 3

"They say the secret to success is being at the right place at the right time. But since you never know when the right time is going to be, I figure the trick is to find the right place and just hang around!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Kastor> He left and my !@#$ nation is !@#$ed up. And the Finance guy refuses to help. He just writes his !@#$ plays.

<Kastor> And laughs and shit.

<Kastor> And gives out !@#$ huge loans to Arthur James, that !@#$ bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Frawley
8 hours ago, MoonShadow said:

i would love to see accurate data, the things that bug me are things such as placing the price of steel at 5k ppu, he did this as it would make those winning look worst off, but i can tell you this much my alliance has not had to buy steel and it damn well has not cost us 5000 ppu, so to use that in order to make out total damage done look bad is laughable to those who know.

 

I set it at 500 under the market price on the day I started publishing stats, that is literally it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Frawley said:

I set it at 500 under the market price on the day I started publishing stats, that is literally it.

As i said its a false price, you stated posting them what a week to ten days after the war had started and the price of steel went up massively, I wonder what the stats would look like if you set the price of steel to its market price before the war, about 3700 ppu, as most on the non IQ side ive not see buy tons and tons of steel, so the steel we are using did not cost 5000 ppu?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Frawley
12 minutes ago, MoonShadow said:

As i said its a false price, you stated posting them what a week to ten days after the war had started and the price of steel went up massively, I wonder what the stats would look like if you set the price of steel to its market price before the war, about 3700 ppu, as most on the non IQ side ive not see buy tons and tons of steel, so the steel we are using did not cost 5000 ppu?

4 days after the war started, and I opened with the line. 'Clear ass kicker here is Rose' - If you don't like the stats do your own.

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.