Jump to content

An Ocean Voyage


Roquentin
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Khai Jäger said:

Let me rephrase.

You are criticizing NPO for leaving IQ to join tS. One big sphere to another, breaking the IQ hegemony and leveling the game.

Then you have Chaos, basically the consolidation of the uppertier. 

Which is more "dynamic?" ??

"Consolidation of the upper tier"

Except as it is right now, t$ and NPO have a larger upper tier than Chaos does. Therefore your point is moot.

Not sure you understand what the word consolidation means. Get some numbers and a dictionary before you run your mouth in the future.

  • Upvote 3

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, don't bother. We weren't kidding about "watch this space", and we'll probably disagree on what "upper tier" means anyway.

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Avakael said:

Actually, don't bother. We weren't kidding about "watch this space", and we'll probably disagree on what "upper tier" means anyway.

Considering 23 is also around Guardians average city count AND CoS's, both considered to be upper tier alliances, i think it'd be a bit disingenuous to say "We won't agree anyway."
You may disagree about Rose with an average of 20, some people these days consider that to be the end of mid tier. Even still, that's the most generous definition of upper tier i've heard. Certainly more generous than what TKR got, 18 was upper tier when everyone was after TKR, now its mid tier according to more and more people.

So yeah, t$ is definitely an upper tier alliance, the only people in your neighborhood are upper tier alliances, the only people above you are whales, and thats Grumpy. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Avakael said:

So are we going to get some actual numbers, or...

You mean you didn't run them before your sphere accused ours of consolidating the game's upper tier?

I am so very surprised! : )

 

Anyway. Good luck with the treaty. I'd probably be more excited about it from a "WOW WHO'D HAVE THUNK IT AFTER ALL THAT HISTORY" perspective if it didn't take you like half a year to get together. :D

Edited by Spaceman Thrax

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

You mean you didn't run them before your sphere accused ours of consolidating the game's upper tier?

I am so very surprised! : )

 

Anyway. Good luck with the treaty. I'd probably be more excited about it from a "WOW WHO'D HAVE THUNK IT AFTER ALL THAT HISTORY" perspective if it didn't take you like half a year to get together. :D

I suspect everyone has entered this thread assuming they're the statistical underdog. Thanks for the good luck.

20 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Considering 23 is also around Guardians average city count AND CoS's, both considered to be upper tier alliances, i think it'd be a bit disingenuous to say "We won't agree anyway."
You may disagree about Rose with an average of 20, some people these days consider that to be the end of mid tier. Even still, that's the most generous definition of upper tier i've heard. Certainly more generous than what TKR got, 18 was upper tier when everyone was after TKR, now its mid tier according to more and more people.

So yeah, t$ is definitely an upper tier alliance, the only people in your neighborhood are upper tier alliances, the only people above you are whales, and thats Grumpy. 

I know damn well I'm not going to agree with you on tier labels- because I put it at about 26 cities and up.

3 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

I said I'd give Kayser the benefit of the doubt, he implied he was cutting treaties. I was rebutting the other guys claim that Chaos is a consolidation of upper tier.

If I start posting up your numbers you'll just complain that I didn't wait and they aren't reflective of your actual size.

Regardless, I don't need to post up your numbers to make the point that Chaos isn't exactly and upper tier powerhouse of which the game has never seen before.

DGb9CL4.png

Take a good look at the horrid stranglehold Chaos Bloc has on the upper tier, everyone bow down in fear to these overwhelming numbers.

Honestly guys, if its me of all people defending TKR of all alliances against your arguments you might want to reevaluate your position.

 

Thanks for bringing numbers. All the same, though- the treaty web hasn't finished moving yet.

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

I said I'd give Kayser the benefit of the doubt, he implied he was cutting treaties. I was rebutting the other guys claim that Chaos is a consolidation of upper tier.

If I start posting up your numbers you'll just complain that I didn't wait and they aren't reflective of your actual size.

Regardless, I don't need to post up your numbers to make the point that Chaos isn't exactly an upper tier powerhouse of which the game has never seen before.

DGb9CL4.png

Take a good look at the horrid stranglehold Chaos Bloc has on the upper tier, everyone bow down in fear to these overwhelming numbers.

Honestly guys, if its me of all people defending TKR of all alliances against your arguments you might want to reevaluate your position.

 

Chaos has most of the upper tier which isn't in Syndiphere now. :P

Although I do find it kind of silly people expect everybody else to put making the game interesting for them over winning. Most of the people who wanted IQ to disband likely just wanted to replace it with something stronger. Doubt many alliances make decisions for the game health & mostly use it as a talking point to get their rivals to lower their guard, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Avakael said:

Thanks for bringing numbers. All the same, though- the treaty web hasn't finished moving yet.

Which is irrelevant to the point I was making about Chaos bloc since my point with them is they aren't a huge grouping of upper tier consolidation. You chose to argue with the example I provided which was just that, I could have pulled a different one but given the guy I was responding to was contrasting you with Chaos it seemed the most appropriate example to use.

Unless you are saying Chaos Bloc might sign more people and so my numbers aren't correct currently. I would assume you guys aren't asking me to not give them the benefit of the doubt on that, when I'm supposed to give it to you on the cancelling of your treaties. 

  • Upvote 2

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Avakael said:

I know damn well I'm not going to agree with you on tier labels- because I put it at about 26 cities and up.

Fun fact, you can calculate city averages by dividing the alliance city number, with the alliance member count. 
Do the math for yourself. 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Avakael said:

Thanks for bringing numbers. All the same, though- the treaty web hasn't finished moving yet.

This is a stupid argument, anybody could say this about any pacts they have. Treaty webs never finish moving, the game advances and treaties move accordingly. 

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

1 minute ago, Gatorcock said:

Fun fact, you can calculate city averages by divided the alliance city number, with the alliance member count. 
Do the math for yourself. 

 

 

This is a stupid argument, anybody could say this about any pacts they have. Treaty webs never finish moving, the game advances and treaties move accordingly. 

City averages aren't good for wider samples. Actual tiering is more important. Median city would be more representative than average even, but the actual tier counts are more important.

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

Just now, Roquentin said:

City averages aren't good for wider samples. Actual tiering is more important. Median city would be more representative than average even, but the actual tier counts are more important.

I'm just arguing that Synda and NPO's new sphere is a lot more dominant over CHAOS. 
Not that these are the exact number of alliances, either way this still is a good way of measuring how much an alliance can produce, and make, nonetheless military strength. 
CHAOS is outnumbered compared to this sphere, yet some wanna complain about us consolidating high tier.  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Which is irrelevant to the point I was making about Chaos bloc since my point with them is they aren't a huge grouping of upper tier consolidation. You chose to argue with the example I provided which was just that, I could have pulled a different one but given the guy I was responding to was contrasting you with Chaos it seemed the most appropriate example to use.

Unless you are saying Chaos Bloc might sign more people and so my numbers aren't correct currently. I would assume you guys aren't asking me to not give them the benefit of the doubt on that, when I'm supposed to give it to you on the cancelling of your treaties. 

I'm quite happy to give them the benefit of the doubt, actually. I like those alliances. If anything, I'm surprised, because I thought they had a lot more of the bigger guys than what your numbers indicated.

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Avakael said:

I'm quite happy to give them the benefit of the doubt, actually. I like those alliances. If anything, I'm surprised, because I thought they had a lot more of the bigger guys than what your numbers indicated.

Most of the big guys are in Grumpy, and were in tCW. Although TKR averaged like 18, the war did a good score on them and dropped their average by 2-3 cities. If I'm correct they're sitting at 15.3 or so cities average per member. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 and up being upper tier seems a bit off considering only ~3.8% of nations in active alliances reside in that area, and just short of half of those are 30 cities or higher which is pretty much inconsequential in most cases.

Granted these tiering labels are somewhat subjective and arbitrary, but I've always defined upper tier as people who reside in the highest city count area within the normal scope of a traditional war, and that is usually the context I've seen people use it in historically.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

26 and up being upper tier seems a bit off considering only ~3.8% of nations in active alliances reside in that area, and just short of half of those are 30 cities or higher which is pretty much inconsequential in most cases.

Granted these tiering labels are somewhat subjective and arbitrary, but I've always defined upper tier as people who reside in the highest city count area within the normal scope of a traditional war, and that is usually the context I've seen people use it in historically.

I just find it difficult to put people at city 28, 29 and people at city 18, 19 in adjoining tiers. Mentally, I have a sub 20 tier ("middle"), a 26 and up tier ("upper" or "whale"), and a tier in between, where all the fun happens.

7 minutes ago, Gatorcock said:

Most of the big guys are in Grumpy, and were in tCW. Although TKR averaged like 18, the war did a good score on them and dropped their average by 2-3 cities. If I'm correct they're sitting at 15.3 or so cities average per member. 

The average isn't as useful as Sketchy's numbers, though. For example, The Syndicate AA alone has an average of 23 and a half cities; but if we were to include our applicant AA (which does participate in war), we drop to an average of 20 cities, even though almost everyone on The Syndicate AA is slightly above that. That's why we need individual counts of nations by city.

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Avakael said:

I just find it difficult to put people at city 28, 29 and people at city 18, 19 in adjoining tiers. Mentally, I have a sub 20 tier ("middle"), a 26 and up tier ("upper" or "whale"), and a tier in between, where all the fun happens.

The average isn't as useful as Sketchy's numbers, though. For example, The Syndicate AA alone has an average of 23 and a half cities; but if we were to include our applicant AA (which does participate in war), we drop to an average of 20 cities, even though almost everyone on The Syndicate AA is slightly above that. That's why we need individual counts of nations by city.

But then that adds numbers to your cities, and even at 20, with the added like 42 from tE that's 113 players in The Syndicate at 20 cities average. That's the production value of 3 Seven Kingdoms. 

Individual counts is too much time, I try and life. If anybody wants to do that work, feel free to do it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Avakael said:

I just find it difficult to put people at city 28, 29 and people at city 18, 19 in adjoining tiers. Mentally, I have a sub 20 tier ("middle"), a 26 and up tier ("upper" or "whale"), and a tier in between, where all the fun happens.

The average isn't as useful as Sketchy's numbers, though. For example, The Syndicate AA alone has an average of 23 and a half cities; but if we were to include our applicant AA (which does participate in war), we drop to an average of 20 cities, even though almost everyone on The Syndicate AA is slightly above that. That's why we need individual counts of nations by city.

Its worth noting the lower limit is also increasing. 1-5 cities is mostly inconsequential to war now. That wasn't so true back in GGF when TKR was recruiting noobs and arming them and sending them straight into the fight pressuring IQ from the bottom. The shift in the bulk of the fighting playerbase has moved pretty firmly out of their reach, so their effect is minimized, and that strategy wouldn't be as effective now (unless you are fighting a micro).

This will probably become more true over time too, given sheepy's changes to the city time, which will likely accelerate the process.

Right now I'd tentatively peg the main fighting range at 6-25 cities. Perhaps even higher on the lower end, say 8-25, I'd have to see the data when we get a more evenly matched war.

 6-13 is lower tier, 14-18 is mid tier, and 19-25 is upper tier. 19-25 might seem like a wide margin but score ranges in the upper tier are wider thanks to war ranges scaling by percentage.

I wouldn't considering 28/29 to be in the adjoining tier given that I'd argue they aren't even in the area for conventional war. Obviously score manipulation can make most nations viable in a fight, but those aren't the city counts that will make the bulk of the impact one way or another.

  • Like 3

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there. It’s early, and I’m planning on going back to sleep so I will attempt not to bore you with a long wall of text. I don’t care much for the argument that Chaos bloc is ‘consolidation’, since it really isn’t as things are currently, but I am going to comment on the overall point that others tried to make in the thread. 

I noticed someone claiming above that the argument that ‘the web hasn’t stopped moving yet’ is a stupid argument because that never stops. While true out of context, and stretched over a longer period of time, the scenario that we’re currently discussion doesn’t fit those parameters. In the short term, you’ll see changes that will reflect the positions of the reflective FA of both alliances, and I - as someone who’s advocated against both NPO and t$ in the past - am personally excited having some awareness of where we’re headed. 

It’s entirely understandable to wish to criticise something that, admittedly, ‘looks bad’, but, sand man’s promise that just a bit of patience will change the way you see things soon ;) 

 

  • Like 3
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.