Jump to content
Frawley

War Stats - Knightfall

Recommended Posts

I'll post up who ran the attack that did it when I get back from this wedding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well finally, a little piece of Orbisian history for The Horsemen.

Or is it just Horsemen without the "The"?

I named the alliance and even I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2019 at 6:30 PM, Frawley said:

Major Update: Once we announced wars were publicly visible, we have received a number of inquiries regarding infra losses.  Through some investigation we have discovered that there is a calculation error within the api, that affects only missiles.  This error has been reported here: 

As a result of this, we have manually recalculated all infra damages utilizing the in-game infra cost calculator methodology.  This has resulted in some rather large changes to anyone who has used missiles a significant amount.  As you can see in the spreadsheet below, the api had calculated for the worst case in our system, that 82.5 infra was worth some 56m, as opposed to the 4.8m it was actually valued at.  We have spent this afternoon validating infra calculations for other attack types, these have been found to be correct.  Apologies for the error, we should have recalculated all the values from the beginning.
unknown.png

 

 

Alex has confirmed the bug, and rectified it for attacks moving forward.

Minor Updates:

Added an Ongoing flag for wars that have not yet completed, this flag updates less frequently than the rest of the site so we are not smashing the api all the time. 

Added a Draw flag for wars where the margin of difference is less than 15%

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Request: replace Draw flag with "close victory" and "close defeat". You still get beige and beige destruction / looting as long as you beige.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Inst said:

Request: replace Draw flag with "close victory" and "close defeat". You still get beige and beige destruction / looting as long as you beige.

Beige loot and destruction is already included in your net results.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point is, it looks better if you net a "close victory" than if you net a draw. Moreover, on a winning war, the majority of enemy victories are going to be "close victories" instead of decisive victories.

 

From an objective point of view, if you look at someone's war history, a close victory is recorded as a victory, not a draw. You're effectively hiding whether a player is losing some wars based on close battles, and well...

Edited by Inst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are missing the point of the War Statistics site, its not to be an exact replica of the in-game results, it is to accurately tabulate the damages and costs incurred during the war.

Because of this, we have examples within our database where the in-game 'victors' have actually lost substantially more than the damage they did, if I were to replicate the in-game result it would display these example wars as victories with net negative damage.  That hardly makes sense.

We have included the 15% 'draw-zone' as a catch all for closely contested wars, not to slight anyone or misrepresent facts. In fact I lost a number of victories on my own page that were marginal in nature.

When we release the update that includes attack level data this will be meaningless anyway as you will be able to get the in-game result from the attack tables. An example is below, although don't hold your breath, we have a stack of work to do on our attack displays prior to release and work has picked up again for LoD and I.

unknown.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, say, if you look at Azaghul, you see a ton of draws on his war list. But it's impossible to know precisely who won each war unless you opened up either each war and looked at the last day's damage, or opened up proper PnW (and wars get pruned off the archives after 30 days). It'd be nice to be able to tell at a glance how well a player is doing, and being able to tabulate major victories vs close victories / defeats increases the usefulness of your war stats system to users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inst there is a difference between a *net damage victory and *war result victory. I can win wars (in game) that cost me more in cash/resources than I've managed to inflict in damages on the target nation and vice versa even with beige damage and loot.

However if I spend 30m to beat someone by 31m I've "won" that war in my book regardless of any draws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Blink said:

Inst there is a difference between a *net damage victory and *war result victory. I can win wars (in game) that cost me more in cash/resources than I've managed to inflict in damages on the target nation and vice versa even with beige damage and loot.

However if I spend 30m to beat someone by 31m I've "won" that war in my book regardless of any draws.

Indeed, sometimes you have to spend a LOT of resources in order to nail the beige, and decommissioned units aren't included in the stats nor can be reasonably attributed to any particular war front... but still are unquestionably resources spent by the "winning" nation, which can easily count for a lot against the bottom line.

Personally, I think of outcomes in 4 different ways. A clear victory is one where you loot more than you spent/lost, a close victory is one where you win but don't loot more than you spent/lost, a close defeat is one where you lose but the enemy doesn't loot more than they spent/lost, and a complete defeat is one where you lose and the enemy loots more than they spent/lost. Tl;dr: Win and loot = complete victory, Win but no loot = victory, lose and enemy loots = complete defeat, lose but no loot = defeat. Anyone that avoids complete defeat is doing okay in my book, more or less anyway.

Net damages are more of a strategic consideration between alliances and the conflict as a whole rather than a tactical one on any of the individual battlefronts, since the economic situation is definitely more macro-level than a few isolated attacks, and the losing side can gain back a lot of net damage ground through aggressive use of attrition wars even when losing the net damage race in their defensive slots. That's how I see it anyway.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are a lot of variable definitions of winning.

 

For instance, by your definition, you're winning if you deal more damage than your enemy on a cost basis. However, what if your opponent has 4x your warchest on an alliance level? Then, to keep the actual attrition rate the same, you'd have to deal 4x the damage of your opponent, or you're slowly being bled to death.

 

Or what if, when you launch an attack, the recipient ragequits, deletes, and posts horrible nonsense on their own forum? The recipient doesn't get beiged, definitely, nor do they necessarily lose more resources in fighting than their opponent. But the entire nation is gone. Or what if a guy ends up panicking, sending out all his resources (including fuel and munitions) back to Pantheon, and ends up getting a strike team to eat his air, tanks, and ships?

 

When it comes to NPO/Frawley's/LoD's war stats, the important thing for me is to be able to perceive data, and then filter it out on my own. If I wanted, say, to know who was winning on an attritional level (the information you value), I'd just count the relative number of positive and negative net damages, as well as the total net damage. But, if on the other hand, I wanted to know who was beiging or being beiged (useful insofar as it suggests the state of control as opposed to attrition), I'd look up the "ongoing/victory/defeat" field, which has been replaced by an "ongoing/victory/draw/defeat" field that eats up information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

For instance, by your definition, you're winning if you deal more damage than your enemy on a cost basis. However, what if your opponent has 4x your warchest on an alliance level? Then, to keep the actual attrition rate the same, you'd have to deal 4x the damage of your opponent, or you're slowly being bled to death.

 

Or what if, when you launch an attack, the recipient ragequits, deletes, and posts horrible nonsense on their own forum? The recipient doesn't get beiged, definitely, nor do they necessarily lose more resources in fighting than their opponent. But the entire nation is gone. Or what if a guy ends up panicking, sending out all his resources (including fuel and munitions) back to Pantheon, and ends up getting a strike team to eat his air, tanks, and ships?

The way I see it, the economic situation is on a macro level and no individual member will make or break their alliances' warchest, unless of course someone accidentally bungles the bank. That's why I don't really consider the alliances' warchests when looking at individual battlegrounds.

As for if someone deletes, well, that's pretty obviously a tremendous defeat for their side. I'd not really count that as a proper and honestly fought war. I hadn't really thought of the latter scenario, but surely that's more of an edge case. ...Surely. Either way, it's a massive defeat on their end, but still on a strategic rather than tactical level.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor Update: We already had some flags in our trade database to remove lover's deals (e.g. 1 food for $10,000,000), however we picked up that we are still capturing some of them.  We have done a bit of data analysis to try and remove these outliers, as a result loots where food was taken have dropped a bit as our system purges these non-market prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering arrgh does seem to have somewhat hit both spheres are those relevant stats being added to our sphere's stats or subtracted from arrgh's net stats on your side?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, curious, what just happened with TKR? War damage is starting to reach 500mn a day, at the present rate, it'll take about a month to pass Rose. Any interesting changes?

 

===

 

Went through it. While increased damage was distributed through IQ and ex-PC at the levels of 50mn and 100mn, most of the increased damage was taken by TEst to the tune of 300mn a day.

Edited by A Boy Named Crow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2019 at 8:17 AM, A Boy Named Crow said:

Also, curious, what just happened with TKR? War damage is starting to reach 500mn a day, at the present rate, it'll take about a month to pass Rose. Any interesting changes?

 

===

 

Went through it. While increased damage was distributed through IQ and ex-PC at the levels of 50mn and 100mn, most of the increased damage was taken by TEst to the tune of 300mn a day.

Maybe they boned up and went on a huge blitz out of a big beige cycle, or else their opponents optimistically bought infra while in firing range? Either is plausible, beige cycles being what they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2019 at 3:43 AM, Sir Scarfalot said:

Maybe they boned up and went on a huge blitz out of a big beige cycle, or else their opponents optimistically bought infra while in firing range? Either is plausible, beige cycles being what they are.

A TEst nation rebuilt to 2500 infra/city and then three of us hit him and ship beiged him and did 100m infra damage and 100m loot apiece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Memph said:

A TEst nation rebuilt to 2500 infra/city and then three of us hit him and ship beiged him and did 100m infra damage and 100m loot apiece.

Ah, so it was optimistic enemies, gotcha. GG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Ah, so it was optimistic enemies, gotcha. GG

Honestly, optimistic is a very nice way of putting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Ah, so it was optimistic enemies, gotcha. GG

A 31 city TEst nation that rebuilt to 2900 infra/city just got beiged this morning to the tune of about $300m in damages so there's another for the tally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Memph said:

A 31 city TEst nation that rebuilt to 2900 infra/city just got beiged this morning to the tune of about $300m in damages so there's another for the tally.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=5674

???

If so, he should've known better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.