Jump to content

War Stats - Global War 12


Sketchy
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

You have consolidated the top tier. You did not do it because you felt forced into a corner like IQ. Your ties to other top tier alliance are the problem. Don't worry about what TEst is doing, or has done. Don't worry what Guardian did during my time leading in this game because I can tell you for certainty, never did we consolidate a tier and sign treaties (or paperless agreements) with those whom could be a threat to us en mass. That is what you have done and are still doing. Should Grumpy move away from Guardian and tCW/TKR, stand along side alliances that have a strong mid tier group, and/or low tier group. Maybe get close to a TEst or tC for a little top tier support but nothing that puts a strangle hold in, you would get my respect. 

 

 

I don't think it is fair to blame SRD for the top tier consolidation. Tier consolidation is an ongoing problem that has been built upon by just about everyone.... TEst has city requirements as well. Just about every alliance in the opposing coalition has participated in consolidation either directly or indirectly. For how many of the last wars has it been low tier vs high tier? Each war saw a little more consolidation as nations were given the option to be basically useless or join your allotted slot... and the so called neutral alliances were happy with the situation as long as EMC were attacking IQ instead of them. The paperless even took money to help consolidate the tiers by joining the winning side. We have all participated in the dogpile.

Guardian is also allied to Grumpy...yet you have respect for them... Grumpy isn't forcing Guardian to be allied. Is it reasonable to assume that Grumpy might feel the same obligation to protect their friends?

While an alliance leader might have an obligation to the game to make interesting dynamic moves that is such a subjective measure as to be basically useless... how do we determine what is in the long term health of the game? Did Partisan help the long term help of the game with his alliance with TKR... did Ripper in his time as Arrgh leader act as a destabilizing force and counter the rising TKR ascendancy? Did you counter the rising power of EMC when you could have helped? Papers please only happened after EMC had destroyed all other opposition. Nuke bloc was rolled when IQ was beaten down. 

Ultimately we are all to blame if consolidation is a problem not just Grumpy and SRD. 

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Just FYI, GOB wasn't initiated on and held no official papered ties to Guardian and TKR.  So yes, it is fair to blame GOB for it.

Is paper a required thing or is paperless ok?

9 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

In any case, I personally can't fault GOB for the actions because I participated in consolidation to an extent with Mensa in Syndisphere.  It has it's advantages.

I don't fault the IQ-tS side for their current actions... it makes sense and the fighting has been fun.

9 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

The only issue I have is when people in the upper tier go "There are no targets", then they later result in gang banging a small bloc of alliances 4-to-1 odds just because they haven't had action for over a year.  That was quite possibly the most cowardly thing to do in the game, especially for all the veterans involved in that who proclaim they love to have good fights.

I think the point is really that we all do that... how do we define the gang bang? Did IQ on KT count? What about NPO's first time? Is a dogpile measured in member count, score, cities, number of alliances or skill of players?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Senatorius said:

Is paper a required thing or is paperless ok?

Depends on who's the one judging it.  In the situation I described, I do think GOB is "at fault" (Quotations there because really I don't think anyone is at fault and players just need to adapt to the situation at hand, but for the sake of this question - I'll answer it as so).  They had a choice to ignore the conflict, but chose to further cement their standing with consolidating the top.

You can tell me, "But Hippo, we all know that GOB would've been hit too."  Honestly I wouldn't know.  GOB is so far up in upper tiers, I honestly have doubts that you guys will get dragged down.  Granted that leans more on the incompetence of any other high tier nation outside of GOB/Guardian that just fills slots that has no coordination at all.  (So that's not on you guys, honestly)

57 minutes ago, Senatorius said:

I think the point is really that we all do that... how do we define the gang bang? Did IQ on KT count? What about NPO's first time? Is a dogpile measured in member count, score, cities, number of alliances or skill of players?

What your "allies" are going through right now?  What you and your "allies" did against Nuke Bloc?  Those are both clear examples of gangbang/dogpiles/whatever.  That's not a hard thing to see or measure here.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Senatorius said:

I haven't seen anybody in Grumpy wanting to avoid this war or upset about being rolled. We are having fun so far( the last stand is always a fun scenario). I don't understand the reasoning that we are ruining everyones fun. Grumpy exists because it is fun to fight with people that communicate ( same reason I think that we enjoy fighting alongside Guardian).With so many alliances in this game you organize a blitz and peeps start talking about how the can't be on at that time etc. We saw it with the blitzes against Guard etc lots of fighters on your side were let down by the guys that weren't logging on or were doing stupid stuff(nuke spamming). I isn't just the size of the nation that gets you entrance into Grumpy but the willingness to coordinate and sacrifice that gets you in. Our friend got attacked and we defended them as best we could. We have had a good fight so far and lots of fun. Who could ask for more from the game? 

 

TLDR.... Grumpy is having a blast being destroyed ! No one is jumping out a window because the pixels are destroyed. 

This, to be honest. Getting rolled isn't painful. I was one of the hardest hammered nations in Terminal Jest, with no pre-existing savings other than my war resource stockpiles, and yet I was able to pay The Syndicate's bank back for my rebuild within a month or two of the end of the fight because a; good loot on the way down that was successfully squirrelled away, and b; infra isn't that much. The worst thing that can happen is that you get completely sat on, blockaded, and cycled through beige status by people being careful not to make mistakes, and that just means your war is over and you can sit back and relax with a cup of coffee.

Edited by Avakael
  • Upvote 1

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Depends on who's the one judging it.  In the situation I described, I do think GOB is "at fault" (Quotations there because really I don't think anyone is at fault and players just need to adapt to the situation at hand, but for the sake of this question - I'll answer it as so).  They had a choice to ignore the conflict, but chose to further cement their standing with consolidating the top.

You can tell me, "But Hippo, we all know that GOB would've been hit too."  Honestly I wouldn't know.  GOB is so far up in upper tiers, I honestly have doubts that you guys will get dragged down.  Granted that leans more on the incompetence of any other high tier nation outside of GOB/Guardian that just fills slots that has no coordination at all.  (So that's not on you guys, honestly)

Ignore their ally getting attacked because the tier consolidation? I am sure there has been alliances that have said that there ally is going to win so we don't need to make it a dogpile but to ignore an ally that is going to be destroyed I don't see how that is an option. I can certainly see if Guardian did the offensive that might carry more weight. Was Grumpy suppose to sit back while IQ and tS won all the tiers easily?

Quote

What your "allies" are going through right now?  What you and your "allies" did against Nuke Bloc?  Those are both clear examples of gangbang/dogpiles/whatever.  That's not a hard thing to see or measure here.

I am not sure... how much do you have to be winning by for it to be a dogpile? I wasn't involved in the nuke bloc thing but didn't IQ accuse nuke bloc of being part of the upper tier consolidation? Why is it when nuke bloc is part of it they are ok with it but when consolidation hurts them it becomes a problem? Edit: the wiki has the SALT war at 2.5  to 1 in terms of numbers. Not great but most of Orbis' wars have a numbers discrepancy.

18 minutes ago, Avakael said:

This, to be honest. Getting rolled isn't painful. I was one of the hardest hammered nations in Terminal Jest, with no pre-existing savings other than my war resource stockpiles, and yet I was able to pay The Syndicate's bank back for my rebuild within a month or two of the end of the fight because a; good loot on the way down that was successfully squirrelled away, and b; infra isn't that much. The worst thing that can happen is that you get completely sat on, blockaded, and cycled through beige status by people being careful not to make mistakes, and that just means your war is over and you can sit back and relax with a cup of coffee.

Wars that sit on peeps are the actual real damage to the game... weeks of not being able to do anything sucks. Wars should be frequent and fast paced we just don't do it that way( and the game doesn't reward it)

Edited by Senatorius
Meh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting rolled isn't painful. Never getting a lick of sense and adopting tactics that make beating you still damaging and irritating for your enemies though, that must be truly depressing.

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

  • Moderators

Forum rule number I_don't_really_remember:

(avoid) Topic Hijacking: Derailing a thread, or inducing topics that are not related to the original subject.

I think that the thread is getting out of its original topic. No one is to be blamed, but please respect the intentions of the topic creator, especially in this case where a lot of work is needed to keep track of stats. Focus on the war stats and comments on them and the performance of alliances. CBs and politics/dynamics can be discussed elsewhere.

This is certainly not a warning or demand. Just a kind request. Besides...

xTdgRhR.gif

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

8 hours ago, Senatorius said:

Ignore their ally getting attacked because the tier consolidation? I am sure there has been alliances that have said that there ally is going to win so we don't need to make it a dogpile but to ignore an ally that is going to be destroyed I don't see how that is an option. I can certainly see if Guardian did the offensive that might carry more weight. Was Grumpy suppose to sit back while IQ and tS won all the tiers easily?

I don’t know if you’re intentionally being dense or you honestly have no idea on the questions you ask.  In any case, how would anyone know Guardian was allied to GOB?

I knew, but that’s because I have connections everywhere.  Not everybody has that though.

I’ll stop there though, since we are derailing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War stats for ya!

There are currently 52 nations in the game with over 30 cities

Grumpy and her allies have approximately 30 of them (it could be 28-32 I don't have crazy spreadsheet skills)

Other interesting stats, When I left VE back in the day to create Grumpy with its large nation friendly environment, I had 20 cities, "That Guy" a member of VE also had 20 cities. 770 days later, I have 33 cities, and That Guy has... 21.  So you can complain about about how big we have gotten and how we corner the market, but as you can see my ally base has about 58% of the nations above 30 not nearly as many as people spout out about, and those percentages drop real quick when you start dropping below 30 cities. 

The reason many of you don't have huge ass nations in your alliances, is either you have prevented them from growing with exorbitant taxes, or the way you run your alliance is not very welcoming to large nations.  Grumpy does not recruit, except for Beli, we constantly try to re-recruit Beli, after Rose poached him from us.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I watched the stats I asked if the 1017 IQ-Syndi players were the biggest coalition but then I realized those are only the players with at least one war and it's full of players with no wars, so I want to ask how many are in total?

And how many with no wars and high infra? Asking for a friend

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Micchan said:

When I watched the stats I asked if the 1017 IQ-Syndi players were the biggest coalition but then I realized those are only the players with at least one war and it's full of players with no wars, so I want to ask how many are in total?

And how many with no wars and high infra? Asking for a friend

I last counted over 1300 members on IQ/tS side to 280 on our side.  That was a week or so ago tho, i believe we had some other bandwagon alliances join in since.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I last counted over 1300 members on IQ/tS side to 280 on our side.  That was a week or so ago tho, i believe we had some other bandwagon alliances join in since.

I think we are more, like 350-400 with the protectorates etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I don't have crazy spreadsheet skills
 

That's probably why you puff your little chest out with pride about growing your nations inefficiently with your Sweet Ronny Newspeak:

"large nation friendly environment "= Elitist. New Nations need not apply.

"So you can complain about about how big we have gotten" = Laugh with derision at your whaling, pixel hugging, and inefficiency

"huge ass nations" = Pixel hugging whales; to be reviled and discouraged at every opportunity.

"you have prevented them from growing with exorbitant taxes" = Reinvested the alliance's resources most efficiency to maximize long term growth and revenue. SRD, do you understand the lofty concept of 5% being bigger than 4%?

" the way you run your alliance is not very welcoming to large nations " =  Not having things like THIS in our alliance page:

" Contact Sweeeeet Ronny D if you are interested in joining. Tho before you do, ask yourself, would you be a good fit for an alliance that averages over 30 cities per member?" In SRD's bizarre, Martian logic not going out of our way to actively discourage newer players means we are "Not welcoming to large nations". This is, of course, patently absurd. Oh, we also don't charge a 10 million dollar up front fee for joining. How elitist of us.

You see, the strategies and growth tactics of GoB are so backwards and inefficient that they have now had to invent their own little orwellian vocabulary to even attempt to justify them. They can't justify their idiotic concepts using actual logic and normal phrases so they've had to make up their own.

 

 

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

You guys are so testy... I wasn't putting down That Guy (who I am not mistaken I turned down for grumpy membership due to his activity levels... whoops!)  My point was that you see a congestion of upper tier nations all in the same spot because there are a ton of alliances that don't have the culture to support nation growth in the upper levels, like how VE now GoG became under seeker's leadership.  Ashland if you want to talk efficiencies you are right tho, getting taxed to support little nations that then either leave or delete is the epitome of efficiency, good on you guys for helping out new... oh that's right you haven't been accepting new members for a while now.

As for community, I do know in 770 days of grumpy we have had 2 members voluntarily leave, must be doing something pretty good.

Back to war numbers!

I have eaten a nuke in 30 out of my 33 cities, 3 more guys we can do it!

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ashland1 said:

That's probably why you puff your little chest out with pride about growing your nations inefficiently with your Sweet Ronny Newspeak:

"large nation friendly environment "= Elitist. New Nations need not apply.

"So you can complain about about how big we have gotten" = Laugh with derision at your whaling, pixel hugging, and inefficiency

"huge ass nations" = Pixel hugging whales; to be reviled and discouraged at every opportunity.

"you have prevented them from growing with exorbitant taxes" = Reinvested the alliance's resources most efficiency to maximize long term growth and revenue. SRD, do you understand the lofty concept of 5% being bigger than 4%?

" the way you run your alliance is not very welcoming to large nations " =  Not having things like THIS in our alliance page:

" Contact Sweeeeet Ronny D if you are interested in joining. Tho before you do, ask yourself, would you be a good fit for an alliance that averages over 30 cities per member?" In SRD's bizarre, Martian logic not going out of our way to actively discourage newer players means we are "Not welcoming to large nations". This is, of course, patently absurd. Oh, we also don't charge a 10 million dollar up front fee for joining. How elitist of us.

You see, the strategies and growth tactics of GoB are so backwards and inefficient that they have now had to invent their own little orwellian vocabulary to even attempt to justify them. They can't justify their idiotic concepts using actual logic and normal phrases so they've had to make up their own.

Ha!

You can say we are Elitist I wont deny that, but the reason some of us are so high up has nothing to do with putting priority into only our nation. All of us have been in multiple alliances and Grumpy is the environment where we feel we best fit in, apart from that we are all really close and talk to each other very often.

The reason for our large size isn't because our priority is selfish, the reason we are so large is because of our activity, as you may have noticed we are around a lot which is the reason why we can coordinate so well.

Our members dont just sit on our money and stack up cities, we actually invest in many smaller alliances, the difference is that we dont go out publicly trying to take credit for it.

We have an entrance fee because we want to, just the same way you guys run tax's and try juicing larger players. we generally look to self optimize ourselves to the max efficiency so we can continue to invest our income in things that each individual player finds to be his own priority. We don't agree with the idea that every nation needs to be just another copy paste mass alliance like some do.

eastwood.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Sephiroth said:

Ha!

You can say we are Elitist I wont deny that, but the reason some of us are so high up has nothing to do with putting priority into only our nation. All of us have been in multiple alliances and Grumpy is the environment where we feel we best fit in, apart from that we are all really close and talk to each other very often.

The reason for our large size isn't because our priority is selfish, the reason we are so large is because of our activity, as you may have noticed we are around a lot which is the reason why we can coordinate so well.

Our members dont just sit on our money and stack up cities, we actually invest in many smaller alliances, the difference is that we dont go out publicly trying to take credit for it.

We have an entrance fee because we want to, just the same way you guys run tax's and try juicing larger players. we generally look to self optimize ourselves to the max efficiency so we can continue to invest our income in things that each individual player finds to be his own priority. We don't agree with the idea that every nation needs to be just another copy paste mass alliance like some do.

Oh the 10 million sign up fee was set specifically to discourage new players from trying to join... not that it stops them.

New Fun Warstats!

The list of alliances below have done less total infra damage than me. (as of 11/1/18)

Afrika Corps, Camelot, Cobra Kai, Eastasia, Empryrea, GodFury, Horseman, Infowars, Oblivion, ODN, Seven Kingdoms, Sirius, the Enterprise, Typhoon, United Hoods, and UPN.

I am within 30k infra destroyed of these alliances

Acadia, Church of Atom, GoG House Stark.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sephiroth said:

Ha!

You can say we are Elitist I wont deny that, but the reason some of us are so high up has nothing to do with putting priority into only our nation. All of us have been in multiple alliances and Grumpy is the environment where we feel we best fit in, apart from that we are all really close and talk to each other very often.

The reason for our large size isn't because our priority is selfish, the reason we are so large is because of our activity, as you may have noticed we are around a lot which is the reason why we can coordinate so well.

Our members dont just sit on our money and stack up cities, we actually invest in many smaller alliances, the difference is that we dont go out publicly trying to take credit for it.

We have an entrance fee because we want to, just the same way you guys run tax's and try juicing larger players. we generally look to self optimize ourselves to the max efficiency so we can continue to invest our income in things that each individual player finds to be his own priority. We don't agree with the idea that every nation needs to be just another copy paste mass alliance like some do.

Given our history I'm pretty disappointed to see that you feel this way. Your attitudes are destructive to the game and the community in the long term.

We'll talk face to face once that ivory tower you're on gets knocked down a few levels, bud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Ashland1 said:

Given our history I'm pretty disappointed to see that you feel this way. Your attitudes are destructive to the game and the community in the long term.

We'll talk face to face once that ivory tower you're on gets knocked down a few levels, bud.

your nation link is broken.

ok more war stats....

as of 11/1/18

Out of the top 57 nations with the highest amount of infra killed, only one of them is from the IQ/tS side  (congrats Curufinwe of the Black Knights! you are 29!)

21 are from TKR

18 are from grumpy

10 are from guardian

6 are from TWC

 

 

 

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.