Jump to content

69 Days Later


Theodosius
 Share

Recommended Posts

The idea that stats determines victors or are even really important in a war seems completely illogical to me. It would be rather easy to prepare to where there is virtually no way to be able to lose more than your opponent (which is what occurred towards the end of the war) while not really accomplishing much of anything and just boring your opponent until they finally give up because beating you down is no fun (Not saying that is what happened here). 

 

A true measure of who wins the war should be who ultimately surrenders and who is best prepared to continue fighting, this will usually be the ones that didn't surrender. To continue to use these metrics on the world forum as any sort of official measurement will just make the wars boring and purely statistical based and end up with a bunch of people constantly double buying soldiers. Do the stats matter? Maybe a little. But they are in no way, shape or form the story of the war. They don't show how the fighting went. They don't show really anything beyond raw numbers that really don't matter that much and it doesn't take into account how much was being replenished by each alliance. 

 

To encourage alliance wars to be statistically based is to encourage them to be boring. The PR of it might be wonderful for all of the forum fighters but at the end of the day the stats should be meaningless.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

Congrats on peace!

Glad Frawley started a better change for stat collection methods during war. Hopefully, that becomes the accepted standard from which more improvements can be made ^_^ 

We certainly need to get this sorted, I think all sides would enjoy having stats readily available to them and have confidence that they were accurate. Not just in what they are showing but showing the full picture of the war.

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

We certainly need to get this sorted, I think all sides would enjoy having stats readily available to them and have confidence that they were accurate. Not just in what they are showing but showing the full picture of the war.

 

I agree. But most war stats up until Ayyslamic Crusade were woefully inadequate, considering infra damage as the sole importance of victory, even if it was just a 700 infra city getting nuked vs a 2000 infra city getting damaged. Least we changed that around last war, despite almost everyone questioning it as it shows us in some positive light lol. But this war, has created more discussions/better stats collection ideas and can only move on from here including resources used amongst other configurations for a whole picture of the war. Either way, I doubt we'd ever get a true picture of the war, because its almost impossible within the available tools, short of Alex implementing a working stats collector :P 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PDunny said:

The idea that stats determines victors or are even really important in a war seems completely illogical to me. It would be rather easy to prepare to where there is virtually no way to be able to lose more than your opponent (which is what occurred towards the end of the war) while not really accomplishing much of anything and just boring your opponent until they finally give up because beating you down is no fun (Not saying that is what happened here). 

 

A true measure of who wins the war should be who ultimately surrenders and who is best prepared to continue fighting, this will usually be the ones that didn't surrender. To continue to use these metrics on the world forum as any sort of official measurement will just make the wars boring and purely statistical based and end up with a bunch of people constantly double buying soldiers. Do the stats matter? Maybe a little. But they are in no way, shape or form the story of the war. They don't show how the fighting went. They don't show really anything beyond raw numbers that really don't matter that much and it doesn't take into account how much was being replenished by each alliance. 

 

To encourage alliance wars to be statistically based is to encourage them to be boring. The PR of it might be wonderful for all of the forum fighters but at the end of the day the stats should be meaningless.

Well, technically it was TKR-TRF-TCW that were irritating us for peace.
I don't think I am allowed to give you a ss from our member's announcement channel or else you could have clearly seen that we actually did plan to prolong this war for 2 more months.
We would have disbanded because of that?
Maybe. IDK and IDC
What's important is to have the spirit to continue fighting regardless of the damage you take or the resources you have left.

And it looks like unlike KT and co, TKR and co were the actual losers.
Kt has proved that TKR is no longer an absolute power in Orbis.
With the reformation of TEst, I dare say TKR is already on shaky grounds.

Beware, the shadow is near......

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TheShadow said:

Well, technically it was TKR-TRF-TCW that were irritating us for peace.
I don't think I am allowed to give you a ss from our member's announcement channel or else you could have clearly seen that we actually did plan to prolong this war for 2 more months.
We would have disbanded because of that?
Maybe. IDK and IDC
What's important is to have the spirit to continue fighting regardless of the damage you take or the resources you have left.

And it looks like unlike KT and co, TKR and co were the actual losers.
Kt has proved that TKR is no longer an absolute power in Orbis.
With the reformation of TEst, I dare say TKR is already on shaky grounds.

Beware, the shadow is near......

The rebirth of our protectorate TEst can mean only good things for TKR.  

Edited by Smith
  • Upvote 2

C0r3Fye.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TheShadow said:

Well, technically it was TKR-TRF-TCW that were irritating us for peace.
I don't think I am allowed to give you a ss from our member's announcement channel or else you could have clearly seen that we actually did plan to prolong this war for 2 more months.
We would have disbanded because of that?
Maybe. IDK and IDC
What's important is to have the spirit to continue fighting regardless of the damage you take or the resources you have left.

And it looks like unlike KT and co, TKR and co were the actual losers.
Kt has proved that TKR is no longer an absolute power in Orbis.
With the reformation of TEst, I dare say TKR is already on shaky grounds.

Beware, the shadow is near......

 

My post was not meant in a sense to defend or boost TKR but more to prevent the degradation of the game and in specific alliance wars from being something that can be fun into something that is purely statistical based and as a result essentially just soldiers being thrown into brick walls in an attempt to reduce the overall "cost" of war while getting otherwise destroyed in nearly every aspect of the war. I am not referring to specific details within this war, just stating that if statistics are what determines war than I could create an alliance with absolutely no resources and just slam into people with nothing but soldiers and "win" the war while I get decimated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PDunny said:

 

My post was not meant in a sense to defend or boost TKR but more to prevent the degradation of the game and in specific alliance wars from being something that can be fun into something that is purely statistical based and as a result essentially just soldiers being thrown into brick walls in an attempt to reduce the overall "cost" of war while getting otherwise destroyed in nearly every aspect of the war. I am not referring to specific details within this war, just stating that if statistics are what determines war than I could create an alliance with absolutely no resources and just slam into people with nothing but soldiers and "win" the war while I get decimated. 

Mate wtf is this pixel-hugger shit you spamming me with,
Those tactics you are referring to are called guerilla tactics.
If you degenerates haven't figured it out yet.
And i dare you to make a one-man alliance and declare on anyone you feel like. Do it no balls.
And just in-case you think winning a single war is something great, losing a war for your alliance is greater.
 

4 minutes ago, Smith said:

We just did

2 more months!

I demand 2 more months.

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

I remember when stats didnt mean anything other then being created by players just for fun because the units killed/lost, missiles launched/eaten, nukes launched/eaten, and infra destroyed/lost stats didnt exist until once again players created their own stat sheets manually just fun to see how alliances performed in war, but in the end the winners and losers were decided on who surrendered first. 

But by the looks of this.... are the winners decided by better stats even if they got their asses handed to them or am i just reading this wrong?

  • Upvote 1

Amidst the eternal waves of time From a ripple of change shall the storm rise Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon Behold the razgriz, its wings of black sheath The demon soars through dark skies Fear and death trail its shadow beneath Until men united weild a hallowed sabre In final reckoning, the beast is slain As the demon sleeps, man turns on man His own blood and madness soon cover the earth From the depths of despair awaken the razgriz Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dark Specter said:

I remember when stats didnt mean anything other then being created by players just for fun because the units killed/lost, missiles launched/eaten, nukes launched/eaten, and infra destroyed/lost stats didnt exist until once again players created their own stat sheets manually just fun to see how alliances performed in war, but in the end the winners and losers were decided on who surrendered first. 

But by the looks of this.... are the winners decided by better stats even if they got their asses handed to them or am i just reading this wrong?

 

Apparently stats are very important. The raw truth of the matter is that stats, at least the way they are currently tracked and used, will almost always favor the winners early on and then as the war progresses begin to even out and then potentially favor the losers. This is just the way the game's mechanics works and will almost always occur. There is less to take, less to destroy and less for them to lose. Once their more expensive units are destroyed and they can only afford to build out soldiers, have such low infrastructure that they barely lose any and have little to nothing left in their banks they end up in a position to where the victor can not realistically continue to "lead" in the statistics. 

I am not trying to pixel hug. I am actually doing the exact opposite. I am stating that basis solely on statistics is at best a horrible way to look at an overall war unless alliances are not actively trying to boost their statistics.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PDunny said:

Once their more expensive units are destroyed and they can only afford to build out soldiers, have such low infrastructure that they barely lose any and have little to nothing left in their banks they end up in a position to where the victor can not realistically continue to "lead" in the statistics. 

Did you know that only thing that put TKR ahead of KT in the stats is the war loot.
Unit kill is almost even.
You can't really complain that minimizing damages is not how you play this game.
By that definition, there was this guy who had no fricking airforce but had around 10K tanks which we kept on munching down.
And the more tanks we killed, the more he made.
If that is your definition of a fair fight, then that's surely not pixel-hugging.
Its called degenerate.

And, yea we could have bought more units.
But we knew they will be killed.
That's why we did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PDunny said:

I am not trying to pixel hug. I am actually doing the exact opposite. I am stating that basis solely on statistics is at best a horrible way to look at an overall war unless alliances are not actively trying to boost their statistics.

 

Stats are a valuable tool to understand how the war is going. In the long run, if an alliance can successfully pull of a guerrilla war, FairPlay to them. At some point a war will be too expensive to continue battling while dealing almost no damage, but an alliance built in such a manner can technically win the war because of the stats proving it. Thats a fair strategy, and insulting it or trying to belittle it is silly. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Dark Specter said:

I remember when stats didnt mean anything other then being created by players just for fun because the units killed/lost, missiles launched/eaten, nukes launched/eaten, and infra destroyed/lost stats didnt exist until once again players created their own stat sheets manually just fun to see how alliances performed in war, but in the end the winners and losers were decided on who surrendered first. 

But by the looks of this.... are the winners decided by better stats even if they got their asses handed to them or am i just reading this wrong?

Actually, even in the old days people often referred to how using resources were wasteful during wars. They weren't tracked but certainly noted, and this is going back to when missiles were the nukes of their times and before the ID buff. So fair to say, it has always been a thing. We just actually have the ability to track these things better now.

  • Like 1

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

Actually, even in the old days people often referred to how using resources were wasteful during wars. They weren't tracked but certainly noted, and this is going back to when missiles were the nukes of their times and before the ID buff. So fair to say, it has always been a thing. We just actually have the ability to track these things better now.

That is true and we do have the ability to track them better now, but back in the old days people were also still figuring out how to best use resources while also trying to figure out the best war strats at the time to use less resources while trying to dish out damage. But the victors and losers were still decided on who surrendered. Plus back then people werent at 18+ cities with 2k plus infra and you only found small groups of people that were that big when the majority was still sitting at about 10-15 cities with 1500 infra which was considered top tier at the time so resources werent being produced as much as they are now so it was harder to keep an alliance from wasting their resources at the time. Alliances have gotten better with this over time which is good and i think this was before the alliance bank was added. (Cant remember if alliance bank was added in beta or some time after the game went live)

Amidst the eternal waves of time From a ripple of change shall the storm rise Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon Behold the razgriz, its wings of black sheath The demon soars through dark skies Fear and death trail its shadow beneath Until men united weild a hallowed sabre In final reckoning, the beast is slain As the demon sleeps, man turns on man His own blood and madness soon cover the earth From the depths of despair awaken the razgriz Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this was clear before the start of this war, TKR side would push KT-TGH side to low-tiers, about half of TKR side nations would be out by the end of round one going back to making whale noises, profit and talking shit on discord, slack, forums, their mom's basement etc. Going by KT war history it was clear it will be long one, with them taking back some of the initially lost stats, practice makes perfect, I'm really interested in whose their next target could be, because this type of gorilla tactics should give any wannabe powerhouse so pause to think.  

Who won? Well the killed and nukes stats of both sides, economically TKR side top tiers lost maybe 10 days in crowth and some resources to fund some low-tier getting beat up. TKR side mostly lost on starting a war solely based on other side shit-talk and SJW related reasons, might aswell lost their soul too if you ask me... :D

KT-TGH side lost their infra, loot and troops but that was expected and given the damage they stacked up in 2 months they didn't loose shit, VM use and deletions is another matter while also expected this is where they lost the most. Respect is given to those things, use VM to escape or rage-quit because your ego can't handle taking the beating your nation gets, it's just weak-ass first world snow-flake behavior. 

Overall winner would be anyone and everyone not involved in this because they grew in peace and TKR side and KT-TGH were hold up and limited to do other stuff on Orbis.    

Just my 2 cents on the subject, take it as you will and congrats for peace and good luck in the future to all involved. o/

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Apeman said:

Someone say gorilla? Must have meant guerilla cause I know you ain't talking about this gorilla. Keep my name out of your mouth

Technically he used it properly.  Gorilla warfare.  Some of us declared up and just nuked.

  • Upvote 2
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.