Jump to content

War Stats 2.0


The Mad Titan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Frawley
22 minutes ago, Justin076 said:

#BringBackYoso

No, literally, bring him back, these stats are whack!

 

You see, I've been bored, and waiting to discredit someones stats. Today is my day. I've been manually logging my war stats for every single war and usually every single battle. So I don't have to go far to see that these stats are a load of crap. 

Here is the infra damage you have for mi: 

3b22155f8b4d099a1bcd2892a808174b.png 

27,577.73 destroyed by me, valued at just $138,847,218.00

However, my stats, which line up with your unit kills almost perfectly, show a much different picture when it comes to infrastructure damage:

1b21e5141d2761ebdad5d213d28ed933.png 

 

The value of my infrastructure destroyed is also $680,000,000, not $138,000,000. I've manually entered the majority of my battles into the infra cost calculator to get precise numbers. Some battles I wasn't able to calculate however, those battles simply aren't included in my stats.

 

So, as we see, there is a lovely 20,735.46 difference in infra destroyed and a beautiful $542,000,000 shortage in value of infra destroyed. Oh but no worries, my infra damage suffered and value is actually perfect, no shocker there.

Now, if I were a betting man, I'm going to assume these deflated values sweep right across non-IQ and aren't just a factor with one TGH member. 

 

Point being, we appreciate the memes Leo, but you're taking it a bit too far when it comes to this meme of war stats. 

In the first tab Leo has stated he is using Alex's published infra value stats, which are known to be innacurate for everyone.  There is api data for military units which is why it is accurate.

Edited by Frawley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Frawley said:

In the first tab Leo has stated he is using Alex's published infra value stats, which are known to be innacurate for everyone.  There is api data for military units which is why it is accurate.

Yes I’m fact they are inaccurate. But only for the value of infra destroyed, not for levels destroyed. If he was using the stat trackers statistics, he would have correct infra destroyed but false value of infra destroyed. This isn’t the fact therefore isn’t a valid excuse for these statistics. Furthermore, my damage suffered stats are accurate to the decimal. Which makes it appear strange to me that IQ’s damage stats are correct why ours are deflated as much as 47% on basic infra levels destroyed. Much more when it comes to value.

Chief Financial Officer of The Syndicate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lairah said:

Actually, it would be preferable if it were made by someone not involved in the war at all. 
Especially as, the only source i can even somewhat reasonably sure is an unbiased source i can think of, which is only so due to it being managed by people from all sides, a week ago clocked IQ in at 134 billion in damage and non IQ at just under 84 billion. That's the good old fashioned wiki page. Say what you will about it, but a disparity that large means somebody screwed up, and the threat of bias is far greater with you than it is with a team of people from relatively diverse positions in the current situation.

Ultimately the problem with people unbiased doing it is that uninvolved parties are just happy to see you killing each other and don't care much who wins. I'm sure one of them will be nice enough to compile all the numbers afterwards. 

There is also a problem of turncoats, deserters, traitors, people deleteing and so forth. As well as prices going up and down. Take Cerberus for example. They started as part of IQ. Then they disbaned and go eaten by IoM, and thus switched sides to nonIQ side. Then they left and started HT, attacked IQ, then decided to switch sides again and attack IoM and thus switched to IQ side again. So in stat tracking where do you put them?

  • Upvote 2

tvPWtuA.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while I'm at topic of inacturate stats, no matter how much you stretch it in your favour, no matter which source you use, one fact still remains, TUE and Polaris did as shit as ever, got steamrolled like a B!

:)

 

Edit: I forgot to add,

Glory to the Emperor!

There...

Also

Arrgh!

Edited by DragonK
Siggy
  • Upvote 2

tvPWtuA.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Curufinwe said:

Real Khans don't need planes, amirite?

 

_20180416_010050.JPG

Don't know who's nation page this is, but he learned from best, he's got all he needs to win. The only thing I'd change is that war policy, but hey, it's a war, so those improvments destroyed matter more than loot.

tvPWtuA.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Pheonix said:

You must be autistic, I don't want to beige people... That will give them a chance to rebuild, I take people down, keep them down and butt frick them until they can't get back up, if I loose an individual war because they took 4000 soldiers and destroyed 1.28 infra in a ground attack, I don't care. Not sure how new you are to pnw? But winning an individual war has nothing to do with winning an alliance war.

Clearly you're doing such a good work of keeping them down and 0ed that they somehow beiged you. In every single instance you fought. Except that one that expired. Porbably cause the guy was keeping you down and let it expire.

 

And in case you weren't lying like hell, then you did a pretty bad job at keeping them down, if htey could afford to outbuy your ground and/or naval, :D

tvPWtuA.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roquentin said:

He can correct me, but fairly sure he meant sub-rank 50, not sub 50 member count. The point he made was that most of the alliances that peaced out weren't having an overall impact on the war since they were mostly very low city count.  For most of them, no one was planning on having them join the war, but they volunteered to do so once it was under way.

This exactly what I meant lol. Judging an aa off of member count is dumb. Nor do I have an my ill intention towards our micro friends. But using them as a basis of IQs martial ability is not a good metric. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, DragonK said:

Clearly you're doing such a good work of keeping them down and 0ed that they somehow beiged you. In every single instance you fought. Except that one that expired. Porbably cause the guy was keeping you down and let it expire.

 

And in case you weren't lying like hell, then you did a pretty bad job at keeping them down, if htey could afford to outbuy your ground and/or naval, :D

Actually it is possible to beige someone when you're completely pinned down. Of course the method might be just a little complicated for you to understand.

 

And no, it isn't letting Diane Abbot do the resistance calculations.

Edited by Matt2004

Untitled.png.a5280e76db3e7bedecea0a5e4d7b7daf.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

It's the same source Yoso's stats used before.

Yes these are literally yosos stats. We pulled his up and put our alliances in instead. Didn’t hear you complaining then. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Pheonix said:

I take people down, keep them down and butt frick them until they can't get back up, if I loose an individual war because they took 4000 soldiers and destroyed 1.28 infra in a ground attack, I don't care. Not sure how new you are to pnw? But winning an individual war has nothing to do with winning an alliance war.

Keeping 'em down so well that of all the finished wars on your war page, you appear to have taken more damage than your opponent(s) in 37% of them? 

I've included a gallery of a couple of my favourites because that's the sort of bore I am.

Some small infra damages indeed!

PTt5wdL.jpg

WmZoBbN.jpg

KLOzpIa.jpg

 

  • Upvote 1

THE Definitive James:

KastorCultist, Co-leading Roz Wei Empyrea The Wei, former TGH warrior, Assassin, and a few more. Player of this game for more time than I want to think about...

infernalsig.png.492fbaaf465234c6d9cf76f12f038d04.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, James XVI said:

Keeping 'em down so well that of all the finished wars on your war page, you appear to have taken more damage than your opponent(s) in 37% of them? 

I've included a gallery of a couple of my favourites because that's the sort of bore I am.

Some small infra damages indeed!

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

PTt5wdL.jpg

WmZoBbN.jpg

KLOzpIa.jpg

 

 

 

I'm starting to see why IQ is winning so easily... because no one understands war mechanics. I don't care about air striking soldiers, I don't care if they have one ship, when they attack my infra they are the ones loosing money because my infra is so cheap. 

I seriously don't see why people are obsessed with getting beiged, it's bad if I beige someone! Because they have a chance to remilitarize.

Smh people, you all have half a brain so USE IT

 

Edited by Pheonix
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

It's the same source Yoso's stats used before.

 

30 minutes ago, LeotheGreat said:

Yes these are literally yosos stats. We pulled his up and put our alliances in instead. Didn’t hear you complaining then. 

If that’s the case all it does is lead to me question the accuracy of past war stats. Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that these stats just don’t add up, not even close. 

IQ’s damage suffered is more than 15 billion less than what it was from Frawley’s stats which were last updated at the beginning of the month... They simply don’t make sense. 

Chief Financial Officer of The Syndicate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Pheonix said:

I'm starting to see why IQ is winning so easily... because no one understands war mechanics. I don't care about air striking soldiers, I don't care if they have one ship, when they attack my infra they are the ones loosing money because my infra is so cheap. 

Pretty sure most people you'll be in a war with at this point will have fairly worthless infrastructure if you want to argue things like that. Additionally, while it may not be the case for you (can't be bothered to check), there are certainly many people using their whole airforce (900-1000+ aircraft) on this low-cost infra which isn't exactly cost-effective either. Besides, if they are using one ship to attack you, and eventually loot you (ignoring the merits you get from being beiged), I'm pretty sure even though the difference would be small, there are net gains from looting - doesn't really seem like losing money to me.

Edited by James XVI
  • Upvote 1

THE Definitive James:

KastorCultist, Co-leading Roz Wei Empyrea The Wei, former TGH warrior, Assassin, and a few more. Player of this game for more time than I want to think about...

infernalsig.png.492fbaaf465234c6d9cf76f12f038d04.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Pheonix said:

I'm starting to see why IQ is winning so easily... because no one understands war mechanics. I don't care about air striking soldiers, I don't care if they have one ship, when they attack my infra they are the ones loosing money because my infra is so cheap. 

I seriously don't see why people are obsessed with getting beiged, it's bad if I beige someone! Because they have a chance to remilitarize.

Smh people, you all have half a brain so US IT

 

Last time I checked, nobody has infra worth destroying. The fact you don't have infra is why people 1 ship beige you. It's because it's not worth wasting the gas and munitions on trying to destroy your infra. Meanwhile, some of your idiot friends are using planes to attack infra (and i mean full strength planes). If you guys are all about not beiging well its backfiring for you pretty badly.

You talk about it being bad to beige someone but we do it all the time because you guys don't remilitarize anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NewOttomans said:

Last time I checked, nobody has infra worth destroying. The fact you don't have infra is why people 1 ship beige you. It's because it's not worth wasting the gas and munitions on trying to destroy your infra. Meanwhile, some of your idiot friends are using planes to attack infra (and i mean full strength planes). If you guys are all about not beiging well its backfiring for you pretty badly.

You talk about it being bad to beige someone but we do it all the time because you guys don't remilitarize anyways.

Remilitarize? Oh.. you mean buy ships, soldiers and tanks... Those are a waste of money and all they do is add to the stats of our enemies. If we were loosing and getting beiged at the rate we are currently, we could easily turn this war around. But because we are on top and because beiging doesn't matter, we will remain on top and kick the shit out of everyone while your whales and Alliance leaders will sit at the top, saying that everything is ok, and not give a shit about you guys, it's pretty sad that you guys put up with that... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Valdoroth said:

I am commenting on here because I'd like to point out some errors that I have found on multiple people's in-game stats, and the linked spreadsheet. For simplicity, we'll use one of the cases I found in SK, Carvell, and one in BK, The Empire of Sunbeam:
50EvoUj.png

Here in the spreadsheet it says carvell did only 1.5k infra dmg, and it's only valued at $329.00.

Let's see what in game says (he only had 1 war):
vR9T2yf.png

Now, looking at The Empire of Sunbeam in BK:
EFX1Yzz.png

His in-game dmg taken adds up to 4909.46 and dealt is 16,310.61 across his 5 wars, neither of which are correct in the spreadsheet.

 

My own stats in the document says I only did 4.5k dmg, when in-game it adds up to be 6k.

 

Since you have basically everyone's stats screwed up on both sides, this tracking sheet is completely unreliable.

Do the math right, or don't do it at all.

 

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.:P

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.

 

8 hours ago, Arkiri Arch said:

 Spreadsheet has me listed at 52k infra destroyed, not bad. However checking the real stats, I racked up nearly 71k infra destroyed, and that was last week. I haven't updated my own damage spreadsheet since. 

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.

8 hours ago, Valdoroth said:

Point being, that tracking sheet is 100% useless for basing anything since everyone's data is wrong in one way or another. You can try to blame Alex for his stat tracker not working correctly, but ultimately you're the one using it. That's on you. If you want accuracy, you simply measure daily infra and military levels, then net those values. That's about all you really needed to look at. If you wanted to look at a very generalized, you track whole AA totals instead of individual players. The numbers of both should add up with errors being VM-ers and deletions.

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.

2 hours ago, Justin076 said:

#BringBackYoso

No, literally, bring him back, these stats are whack!

 

You see, I've been bored, and waiting to discredit someones stats. Today is my day. I've been manually logging my war stats for every single war and usually every single battle. So I don't have to go far to see that these stats are a load of crap. 

Here is the infra damage you have for mi: 

3b22155f8b4d099a1bcd2892a808174b.png 

27,577.73 destroyed by me, valued at just $138,847,218.00

However, my stats, which line up with your unit kills almost perfectly, show a much different picture when it comes to infrastructure damage:

1b21e5141d2761ebdad5d213d28ed933.png 

 

The value of my infrastructure destroyed is also $680,000,000, not $138,000,000. I've manually entered the majority of my battles into the infra cost calculator to get precise numbers. Some battles I wasn't able to calculate however, those battles simply aren't included in my stats.

 

So, as we see, there is a lovely 20,735.46 difference in infra destroyed and a beautiful $542,000,000 shortage in value of infra destroyed. Oh but no worries, my infra damage suffered and value is actually perfect, no shocker there.

Now, if I were a betting man, I'm going to assume these deflated values sweep right across non-IQ and aren't just a factor with one TGH member. 

 

Point being, we appreciate the memes Leo, but you're taking it a bit too far when it comes to this meme of war stats. 

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.

2 hours ago, Justin076 said:

Yes I’m fact they are inaccurate. But only for the value of infra destroyed, not for levels destroyed. If he was using the stat trackers statistics, he would have correct infra destroyed but false value of infra destroyed. This isn’t the fact therefore isn’t a valid excuse for these statistics. Furthermore, my damage suffered stats are accurate to the decimal. Which makes it appear strange to me that IQ’s damage stats are correct why ours are deflated as much as 47% on basic infra levels destroyed. Much more when it comes to value.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the exact source Yosodog's stats used so meme-ing about him is funny. If people are wanting different standards now, they can try to produce formulas. There isn't going to be a surely accurate thing, though that won't be in contention.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Justin076 said:

Yes I’m fact they are inaccurate. But only for the value of infra destroyed, not for levels destroyed. If he was using the stat trackers statistics, he would have correct infra destroyed but false value of infra destroyed. This isn’t the fact therefore isn’t a valid excuse for these statistics. Furthermore, my damage suffered stats are accurate to the decimal. Which makes it appear strange to me that IQ’s damage stats are correct why ours are deflated as much as 47% on basic infra levels destroyed. Much more when it comes to value.

The stat tracker only checks day to day changes in infra, so rebuilding tends to screw it up. e.g. Greatnate nominally lost 0 infra one war despite eating multiple nukes. That's not even getting into whatever madness is how it calculates infra cost.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DragonK said:

Don't know who's nation page this is, but he learned from best, he's got all he needs to win. The only thing I'd change is that war policy, but hey, it's a war, so those improvments destroyed matter more than loot.

That was my nation page, and yes, I'm using Tactician for that Improvement elimination.

Got quite a few destroyed.

41 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

It was the exact source Yosodog's stats used so meme-ing about him is funny. If people are wanting different standards now, they can try to produce formulas. There isn't going to be a surely accurate thing, though that won't be in contention.

Thing is, there were more accurate stats before this thread.  It's pretty obvious what this thread creation was meant for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pheonix said:

I'm starting to see why IQ is winning so easily... because no one understands war mechanics. I don't care about air striking soldiers, I don't care if they have one ship, when they attack my infra they are the ones loosing money because my infra is so cheap. 

I seriously don't see why people are obsessed with getting beiged, it's bad if I beige someone! Because they have a chance to remilitarize.

Smh people, you all have half a brain so USE IT

 

>when they attack my infra, they are the ones losing money

>forgets that IQ members are Airstriking less than 1k Infra due to no other targets being provided for them

>still losing out due to 1 Ship Raid beiges destroying more Infra and using less resources while doing so

>"I'm starting to see why IQ is winning so easily"

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1
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.