Jump to content

War Stats 2.0


The Mad Titan
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Where's @Lelouch Vi Britannia and his memes?  At least that counteracts some of the soreness from BK.

This is how I see everything BK most everyone says:
https://imgur.com/r/gifs/4W6a7sg

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

1 hour ago, element85 said:

See, this is exactly what I mean. You're saying the stats of the tjest war means you won and now here you're saying the stats for this war are propaganda. Please kindly go frick yourself. Done with you people. When one of you get more than half a brain cell, then we will talk. 

Well I mean these stats are off by BILLIONS in damages. The only thing you have said this entire thread is "you r a retard pls look at stat, i will not read ur evidence that im wrong dur durh durh, i can not read what other people say i am right." 

Officer Nasty reporting for duty. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, element85 said:

See, this is exactly what I mean. You're saying the stats of the tjest war means you won and now here you're saying the stats for this war are propaganda. Please kindly go frick yourself. Done with you people. When one of you get more than half a brain cell, then we will talk. 

The reason people are saying the stats are propaganda is due to several discrepancies. I'm not any good with spreadsheets, so I'm not going to argue "biased values" or something of the sort. However, if you, or someone else, can explain a few discrepancies I've noticed between Frawley's stats and Leo's, I would appreciate it. 

First thing I noticed is BK and NPO's damage taken. BK and NPO took, according to Frawley's last updated stats $22b and $12.5b worth of damage, respectively. According to Leo's stats, BK and NPO took $24B and $10b, respectively. One could simply look at NPO's stats and realize somehow losing $1.5b in overall damage is impossible, meaning either Frawley's or Leo's stats were off because of... something. 

To pick a non-major INQ member yields similar weird results. Frawley had TUE taking about $5.5b, Leo has TUE taking about $4.7b. 

You see similar weirdness with non-inq stats too. Frawley had KT at $17.3b total damages taken, but Leo has KT at $16.8b. TGH managed $5.7b on both stat lists. 

These are just things I noticed at a glance. The overall theme here is both stat lists cannot be right at the same time. So the question becomes who's stat list is wrong, and why? 

Perhaps read and reason before insulting people. You can't say there aren't discrepancies. Something appears off. Again, I'm not claiming fabricated numbers or anything of the sort. I'd prefer to believe someone's stats are off due to a mistake rather than BK/Leo knowingly posting skewed stats on a community board where a majority of the posters tend to have a distaste for your group. That wouldn't make much sense. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LMAO, where is the source code for the stat bot? It's off by quite a bit.

Humans cannot create anything out of nothingness. Humans cannot accomplish anything without holding onto something. After all, humans are not gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of how you want to calculate your stats at the end of the day I know which side of this War and the last I am happy to have been on.  I am middle of the pack when it comes to "power level" in BK and I sure as heck did way more damage to my opponents than I took.   Pretty much all of them were left with burning cities and no military and my Brothers and I just keep Rolling On.  There may be a way to somehow sift the numbers to show BK "losing", but from a practical perspective we have broken or are breaking every Alliance who has come against us.  So stop arguing about "stats" and just look at who is still fighting.  Or lay there in the dirt and clutch your "stats" for comfort if they make you feel better.

I am nothing special in BK.  Just a 10 City Nation less than 100 days old.  Nothing compared to the 1100+ day awesomeness of Vanaheim and yet... 

image.thumb.png.40d1828ebb3da52425127a02421b181d.png

The Golden Horde .... So Much Winning!!!  Or should it be Wining?  Same thing in this case I suppose...

image.png.f9ab7b69d165a19e4ef21e0899da29c2.png

image.png

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

3 hours ago, element85 said:

That's so "Christian" of you, especially to be a hypocrite with double standards.

Is that not exactly what all of you have been doing here in this thread? Being butt hurt? But hey, whatever floats your boat. If the shoe fits...

So please do fill out that form and submit it to me at your earliest convenience.

Did you just assume my religion? 

Did you just assume my guilt by association? 

Yes, mom. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Now it's just an attrition battle.  Those who go all Planes and those who go with the 1 Ship strat.  Most other threats to our upper tier have been dealt with, and eventually if they do get dropped down (Which will cost more resources to do so), it'll basically return back to what it is now.  Your upswing will stall out inevitably, and we'll be in a perma situation where neither of us can pin the other down.

Mhmm, fair enough. Disagree with the last part, but we'll need to keep fighting to find out.

In general, people should stop buying too much into the stats. The term Attrition keeps getting thrown around, yet IQ could sustain itself for 2 months last war and they didn't have a year to prepare that time. As of yet, I see no signs of the IQ offensive weakening. Maybe we can check at it again in another month or two.

Edited by Them

[insert quote here]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Them said:

Mhmm, fair enough. Disagree with the last part, but we'll need to keep fighting to find out.

In general, people should stop buying too much into the stats. The term Attrition keeps getting thrown around, yet IQ could sustain itself for 2 months last war and they didn't have a year to prepare that time. As of yet, I see no signs of the IQ offensive weakening. Maybe we can check at it again in another month or two.

Sure, according to the bank you have, you have a lot of resources stockpiled up collectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Thalmor said:

^^ Imagine getting this mad over a video game.

Only insults I'm seeing are from your alliance mate, element85. Should probably tell him to calm down some. Too much sodium is bad for one's health.

Well you see, there all these salty guys who go onto BK's Discord, and element being element wants to get his hands on any element that he come across, he has been extremely ill because of all the sodium he has collected. He tries to dump it here, but this is a salt Haven for you guys, it's hard to get away, your salt spreads everywhere.

Edited by Pheonix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arkiri Arch said:

>when noobs talk about things they dont know about

Mate, you're describing 90% of the OWF.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely you guys can at least recognize the irony in all the accusations flying around that the non-IQ side is trying to spin facts in their favor and use their own biased metrics....by comparing BKs stats to NPOs. It isn't like Keegoz made his own stat sheet and we are comparing information from one side against the other, in which case both have potential incentive to massage the stats.

Instead we have one side deliberately change its calculations to dramatically shift the damages (past and present) in their favor, from how they previously tallied it. Maybe Leos method is just more accurate than Frawleys, though much of this thread indicates very strongly otherwise. But even the most die-hard BK-stat supporter has to realize how this looks....

Edited by Mikey
  • Upvote 4

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Surely you guys can at least recognize the irony in all the accusations flying around that the non-IQ side is trying to spin facts in their favor and use their own biased metrics....by comparing BKs stats to NPOs. It isn't like Keegoz made his own stat sheet and we are comparing information from one side against the other, in which case both have potential incentive to massage the stats.

Instead we have one side deliberately change its calculations to dramatically shift the damages (past and present) in their favor, from how they previously tallied it. Maybe Leos method is just more accurate than Frawleys, though much of this thread indicates very strongly otherwise. But even the most die-hard BK-stat supporter has to realize how this looks....

I'm going to go with @Frawley. Every stat sheet he's put out has shown his "side" to be losing, but he's maintains poise and the degree of separation needed when doing this kind of work. His sheets have never been shown to have as many glaring problems as the one at the start of the thread.

@Frawley, this one is for you mate.

81fVXYGKgtL._SY550_.jpg

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Instead we have one side deliberately change its calculations to dramatically shift the damages (past and present) in their favor, from how they previously tallied it.

Yeah... I'm going to have to disagree on this one. While it's a quite nice propaganda piece, no intentional tinkering of the stats occurred. Sheepy's stat-tracker is terrible as always, and I assume that IQ is rebuilding more infra (to keep their nations from dropping below the mil cap) than KT-sphere is. This compilation was done independently of Frawley's starting from around the same time and they have been updated concurrently, hence the tabs with dates. Initially, the stats were shown primarily to BK (I'll leave you to argue whether that was to boost morale) and this thread is the first time it was posted publicly. So, no calculations were changed and these stats are the ones that we have always been using. (Steel was even valued at 3.5k to appease you guys >.>) I have no problem with debate on the validity of the stats, but don't try to infer fraudulent intent.

[insert quote here]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Them said:

Yeah... I'm going to have to disagree on this one. While it's a quite nice propaganda piece, no intentional tinkering of the stats occurred. Sheepy's stat-tracker is terrible as always, and I assume that IQ is rebuilding more infra (to keep their nations from dropping below the mil cap) than KT-sphere is. This compilation was done independently of Frawley's starting from around the same time and they have been updated concurrently, hence the tabs with dates. Initially, the stats were shown primarily to BK (I'll leave you to argue whether that was to boost morale) and this thread is the first time it was posted publicly. So, no calculations were changed and these stats are the ones that we have always been using. (Steel was even valued at 3.5k to appease you guys >.>) I have no problem with debate on the validity of the stats, but don't try to infer fraudulent intent.

 I'm not saying these stats are more wrong per se, all stats have their own issues and I trust you when you say these have been kept from the beginning. Even still, one version of statistics had been openly published by your side up to this point which reflected less than ideal (though I believe improving) totals for your coalition. Later, you change the publicly available stats to a different method of calculation that greatly shifts things in your favor. As 3rd parties, all we see is that suddenly new methods are being used (even if they had been in use internally), and it is not unreasonable to see an attempt to shift the optics of the war through new, or at least different, calculations. Certainly it is not unreasonable to question the validity of these when compared to discrepancies with pre-existing stats from an unbiased party (or at least, a party not biased against IQ).

These stats may be better, I don't know, though there are intense disagreements over this. But it boggles the mind that there are posters suggesting that non-IQ (is there a better coalition name here?) is waging a propaganda war or underhandedly trying to undermine these statistics merely by comparing to other stats collected by your side. That there are differences itself doesn't alone negate the validity of these stats, but its not like Buorhan whipped some random non-IQ spreadsheet out his ass in response to this thread either.

Edited by Mikey
  • Upvote 2

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Later, you change the publicly available stats to a different method of calculation that greatly shifts things in your favor. As 3rd parties, all we see is that suddenly new methods are being used (even if they had been in use internally), and it is not unreasonable to see an attempt to shift the optics of the war through new, or at least different, calculations. Certainly it is not unreasonable to question the validity of these when compared to discrepancies with pre-existing stats from an unbiased party (or at least, a party not biased against IQ).

Mhmm. I think there's a disconnect between BK's intent in posting these stats and the OWF's perception. They're a nice propaganda piece, not a replacement for Frawley's stats, which I'll confer have a more meticulous methodology. Rather than to revise our narrative, the stats exist to provide a more optimistic view of the war for IQ than the last update of Frawley's stats. (As far as I know, there aren't any publicly sanctioned IQ stats) Feel free to prove me wrong since I don't come here much, but I also haven't seen any attacks on Frawley's stats from IQ members. Don't know where you're getting that from. The grievance that Pheonix has is that the reception to these stats differs so dramatically to that of Sketchy's stats, which were done in the exact same way. This is understandable, but Leo certainly didn't post this thread to undermine Frawley's stats, as many in this thread are suggesting. As far as we knew, these stats were accurate, since they were gathered in the way that has traditionally been used up to this point. IIRC, the BK damages, at least, lined up fairly well with Frawley's at a certain point.

[insert quote here]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Lelouch Vi Britannia said:

Suffering with irl stuff

Gib Coca Cola and meme production will continue

3

Hell yeah, the Lelouch returns.

Hope all is alright. Keep those dank may-mays comin'.

  • Upvote 1

new_forum_sig_2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, NewOttomans said:

@Esentia

Wow, you did 400 infra damage congrats. Definitely not better than getting 2000 infra shitted by one guy.

5ad6a93a6eafe_Screenshot2018-04-17at10_10_44PM.png.2571c6c0286c8a5f91de599c8dcc528c.png

5ad6a96c21832_Screenshot2018-04-17at10_11_47PM.png.658b4a2cfdb84bae4675520b688fa2e8.png

He also did destroy a good 25 million in tanks, which far outstrips the infra damage done to his 900 infra cities :P

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

[insert quote here]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is exactly not accurate according to you? Frawley’s stats and this set of stats can’t match because he took steel something around 5000 ppu, if I am wrong there please correct me. These stats are taking steel at 3500 ppu. So if you know some maths you should be able to understand how values can vary.

Units lost/destroyed are taken directly from the API provided by the game, so it should be completely accurate.

I will say once again that infrastructure damage is directly taken from in-game Stats Tracker, which is known to provide unreliable data in some cases. I would like to point out how said tool has been used before for other conflicts and it was well accepted by then. 

There is no data provided by the game to calculate or ‘get’ infrastructure data 100% accurate, which is why the Stat Tracker has been used as it also is impartial, miscalculations are for everyone regardless of alliance affiliation.

I can only grant you the issue with people deleting or leaving alliances fighting are not included there. Other than that it is you trying to deny what is obvious.

You are likely to be in disadvantage when Frawley releases his stats, I cannot wait for the arguments you will make up to try keep painting you still as ‘winning’ by then. I will have fun quoting all of you.

  • Upvote 4
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.