Guest Curufinwe Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 7 hours ago, Prefontaine said: The primary difference in your example with t$ is that they declared offensively, where as we were declared upon. They also hold military agreements with a major party involved (though they were not involved at the time of the declaration). Yarr has no military treaty with any alliance involved. We provide no military service to Rose in return for that protectorate. It's a purely one way street, which we've made very clear even before this whole war popped off. I'm also not looking to debate every hypothetical, or past instances, I'll leave that up to you. However I would recommend if an alliance is adamantly stating they are not a part of a side in a war, has made clear attempts to seek peace outside of the coalitions, and is requesting to be left out of the stat tracker to protect their neutrality (when they are a neutral alliance) that you respect the wishes of that alliance. If there were compelling evidence which shows Yarr is in fact a part of Coalition A or B I would be less vocal about the removal because it would be a grey area. From everything I've seen the only evidence provided is that Yarr is protected by Rose, which is the reason for the war. I'm not attempting to argue the validity of a CB, as far as I'm concerned they're valid in attacking us if they view us as an ally of Rose. That's fine. However as an alliance we are telling you we are not on the side of Coalition A, where Rose is. While BK and others might view us as a part of Rose's sphere, that doesn't mean we are. I can view NPO as an ally of TKR, I can also attack you while I'm fighting TKR if that is my belief. However that does not mean you are an ally, or on the same side as TKR. Yeah but the issue Frawley is getting at is that tS, Alpha, HS, tE and CoA were fairly adamant that they were launching a separate yet concurrent war, rather than one that was part of the wider coalition B war effort. However, despite their protestations to the contrary, most people on the other side appeared to regard them as part of the overall war rather than a separate thing and their stats are included on our side as a result. There's also prots counted toward our side (Coal Mines comes to mind) that we wouldn't really consider part of our coalition (they just kind of did their own thing against House Arryn), but for statistical purposes have been counted because they had a tie with a prot that was on our side. From our perspective, Yarr is a prot of a hostile AA (as indicated by your ingame tie) the same way Clan Cailan, Silenzio, House Arryn or Animation Domination are and should be counted accordingly. While I understand that you have a different perspective, Frawley's point that removing one AA and leaving others would be problematic is a valid one, since without some sort of consensus on who should be included the stats page is just going to become another point of contention between sides agitating to add or remove various AAs to improve their damage ratios. For that reason, I'd be in favour of just leaving everyone in (although that benefits my 'side' less, since the tS sphere's negative damage totals are larger as Yarr's) and hammering out a consensus on future wars after the dust settles, rather than trying to have a discussion about this when people have war related axes to grind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodor Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 4 hours ago, Curufinwe said: Yeah but the issue Frawley is getting at is that tS, Alpha, HS, tE and CoA were fairly adamant that they were launching a separate yet concurrent war, rather than one that was part of the wider coalition B war effort. However, despite their protestations to the contrary, most people on the other side appeared to regard them as part of the overall war rather than a separate thing and their stats are included on our side as a result. There's also prots counted toward our side (Coal Mines comes to mind) that we wouldn't really consider part of our coalition (they just kind of did their own thing against House Arryn), but for statistical purposes have been counted because they had a tie with a prot that was on our side. From our perspective, Yarr is a prot of a hostile AA (as indicated by your ingame tie) the same way Clan Cailan, Silenzio, House Arryn or Animation Domination are and should be counted accordingly. While I understand that you have a different perspective, Frawley's point that removing one AA and leaving others would be problematic is a valid one, since without some sort of consensus on who should be included the stats page is just going to become another point of contention between sides agitating to add or remove various AAs to improve their damage ratios. For that reason, I'd be in favour of just leaving everyone in (although that benefits my 'side' less, since the tS sphere's negative damage totals are larger as Yarr's) and hammering out a consensus on future wars after the dust settles, rather than trying to have a discussion about this when people have war related axes to grind. Obligatory douche move: StAtS dOn'T mAtTeR! Actual response: I'd actually really like to see perhaps a filter to the war stats? Perhaps something like main coalitions only and then one with the adjacent related conflicts? I get what Pre is saying and it makes sense in a way, but applied to RL it doesn't reallllly fit. Various small European states wouldn't really be able to make the case that they didn't fight in WW2 despite being invaded by Nazi Germany. Additionally, we could really call this war the war of BK-sphere aggression (controversial, but we attacked preemptively on concrete intel) so really any expansion by them could be seen as valid following the WW2 analogy (but not in any way comparing BK to Nazi Germany). 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Hodor said: Actual response: I'd actually really like to see perhaps a filter to the war stats? Perhaps something like main coalitions only and then one with the adjacent related conflicts? I think this is the best solution. The stats don't exist as an arbiter of the politics of wars, they're only meant to track damages. I know there's an at least partially-implemented alliance filtering system somewhere in stats module, so I think it makes sense to allow people to selectively exclude specific alliances from coalition-level stats views, but leave the default inclusion settings as they are now. Even under the current system we're already arguing about the "true" damage ratios of the war, and about how much they actually matter. I don't think breaking each war into a half dozen separately-tracked subconflicts would change that. If people feel the need to differentiate themselves from a war coalition, the stats page already links to each war's wiki page, which in turn usually includes all relevant alliance announcements on the forums. Edited August 22, 2019 by Edward I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frawley Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 Thanks for responses on this so far, I'll come back to dirext suggestions shortly but something happened to the bot and new attacks are not going in so that is taking precedence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 Prefontaine, you should be enjoying your vacationmode, not troubling yourself with internet games. When you get "back" I'm sure you'll have plenty of time to design your own stat tracker that can track 20+ concurrent mini-wars. 1 Quote Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 Back on topic: Would it be possible to track active offensive wars vs defensive wars? There's a total in the stats already but seeing current numbers would be an excellent tool in seeing how an alliance is still conducting operations during an extended global. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frawley Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 22 hours ago, Bartholomew Roberts said: Back on topic: Would it be possible to track active offensive wars vs defensive wars? There's a total in the stats already but seeing current numbers would be an excellent tool in seeing how an alliance is still conducting operations during an extended global. It's in the refactored website under development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Changeup Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 Guardians of the Galaxy has attacked their coalition mates. Why doesn't this surprise me? On a related note, that makes this a three-way war (or a separate war) since Electric Space is also fighting us. How would a three-way war be tracked in stats? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted August 27, 2019 Share Posted August 27, 2019 On 8/22/2019 at 9:23 PM, Placentica said: Prefontaine, you should be enjoying your vacationmode, not troubling yourself with internet games. When you get "back" I'm sure you'll have plenty of time to design your own stat tracker that can track 20+ concurrent mini-wars. How I spend my time between my two vacations is entirely up to me. I decided to spend some of it trying to get my alliance peace. Glad to see you're as obsessed as ever with me. I'm flattered. I won't need to design a stat tracker if the current one is run without a bias, which is my point. Alliances that are not a part of coalition A or B should not be assigned to such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frawley Posted August 27, 2019 Share Posted August 27, 2019 15 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: How I spend my time between my two vacations is entirely up to me. I decided to spend some of it trying to get my alliance peace. Glad to see you're as obsessed as ever with me. I'm flattered. I won't need to design a stat tracker if the current one is run without a bias, which is my point. Alliances that are not a part of coalition A or B should not be assigned to such. I'd make you Coalition C in the new version, but it's not finished yet, and the current version doesn't support more than two sides. Bear in mind though, it doesn't actually change any values, just changes where they sum up, coalition B's $ value would not move a dollar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted August 27, 2019 Share Posted August 27, 2019 1 minute ago, Frawley said: I'd make you Coalition C in the new version, but it's not finished yet, and the current version doesn't support more than two sides. Bear in mind though, it doesn't actually change any values, just changes where they sum up, coalition B's $ value would not move a dollar. I believed I said somewhere in the beginning that I wanted us removed, at the very least we should be a separate side. That separate side effectively being the compromise. Side note, did we used to count raids in stats for wars? I honestly don't remember. I only ask because this has the feel of an organized raid, rather than a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frawley Posted August 27, 2019 Share Posted August 27, 2019 57 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: I believed I said somewhere in the beginning that I wanted us removed, at the very least we should be a separate side. That separate side effectively being the compromise. Side note, did we used to count raids in stats for wars? I honestly don't remember. I only ask because this has the feel of an organized raid, rather than a war. The other side has said, in this thread, that they are of the view its a war not a raid and that it is part of this conflict. This could be solved with a whole new war setup, but seeing as most of Coalition B is attacking you, that would require me to maintain a seperate conflict with over 100 participating alliances (once you include Bank AAs) which is an admin nightmare. The solution to have coalition C isn't technically feasible right now, but it will be when we release the next version and I'm happy to segregate Yarr from KERCHTOG at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micchan Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 Doing something with the site? Does stats update forever and not like in the past with 5-10 minutes two times per hour Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodosius Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 7 hours ago, Micchan said: Doing something with the site? Does stats update forever and not like in the past with 5-10 minutes two times per hour I was under the impression I was having my regular bad luck as I always end up being snoozed, but yeah now it looks like they're working something on it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menace Posted August 30, 2019 Share Posted August 30, 2019 The stat page just shows TFP stats when fighting Kertog. Is there a way to see our stats now that we are fighting IQ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frawley Posted August 30, 2019 Share Posted August 30, 2019 On 8/29/2019 at 1:06 PM, Micchan said: Doing something with the site? Does stats update forever and not like in the past with 5-10 minutes two times per hour Yeah, I think its been fixed now, LoD was on it. 22 hours ago, Theodosius said: I was under the impression I was having my regular bad luck as I always end up being snoozed, but yeah now it looks like they're working something on it See above 5 hours ago, Menace said: The stat page just shows TFP stats when fighting Kertog. Is there a way to see our stats now that we are fighting IQ? Its in the new site, this one was punched together mid-Knightfall and is a bit shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blink Posted August 30, 2019 Share Posted August 30, 2019 (edited) Will Mythic/Mystic1-99 and Hyperion's wars made against coalition B be added to the stats at some point? Both have hit both sides in this war. Edited August 30, 2019 by Blink 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Changeup Posted August 30, 2019 Share Posted August 30, 2019 On 8/27/2019 at 2:03 AM, Frawley said: The solution to have coalition C isn't technically feasible right now, but it will be when we release the next version and I'm happy to segregate Yarr from KERCHTOG at that time. @Blink This may help, just change Yarr for Mythic/Mystic1-99/Hyperion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blink Posted August 30, 2019 Share Posted August 30, 2019 Will it depends if these sides have actually picked a side. But something needs to be decided for groups who raid both sides of a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dryad Posted August 30, 2019 Share Posted August 30, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, Blink said: Will Mythic/Mystic1-99 and Hyperion's wars made against coalition B be added to the stats at some point? Both have hit both sides in this war. Yeah, I would be interested to know our loot against Coalition B. Our stance in this war is kinda complex. We were originally asked by Arthur of Camelot to join the war on their side and entered the war intending to go all out supporting them, but then the thing kinda revealed itself as this insane raiding bonanza that let us loot a good 10 billion so priorities shifted and we started to focus on the profit aspect. I think worth mentioning here is the difference that we have done wars against kerchtog with the pure aim of destroying military while all wars against coalition B were raids that could be excused as "preventing kerchtog to loot against those nations first" (though I wont deny our main motive here isn't prevention of kerchtog loot but our own greed). So I would actually argue we are more coalition B than kerchtog and it isn't completely fitting to add us to the kerchtog side, but a coalition C thing seems fine I guess. I'm definitely curious to know the full numbers. edit: I hate to DM Frawley who is already busy enough, so i'll use this post to post my offshores that havent yet been added to the stats in a non-annoying way and perhaps he just happens to see it by chance ? https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/alliance/5933 https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/alliance/5944 https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/alliance/5956 https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/alliance/5965 https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/alliance/5983 https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/alliance/6000 https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/alliance/6022 https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/alliance/6030 Edited August 30, 2019 by Dryad 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blink Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 7 hours ago, Dryad said: Yeah, I would be interested to know our loot against Coalition B. Our stance in this war is kinda complex. We were originally asked by Arthur of Camelot to join the war on their side and entered the war intending to go all out supporting them, but then the thing kinda revealed itself as this insane raiding bonanza that let us loot a good 10 billion so priorities shifted and we started to focus on the profit aspect. I think worth mentioning here is the difference that we have done wars against kerchtog with the pure aim of destroying military while all wars against coalition B were raids that could be excused as "preventing kerchtog to loot against those nations first" (though I wont deny our main motive here isn't prevention of kerchtog loot but our own greed). So I would actually argue we are more coalition B than kerchtog and it isn't completely fitting to add us to the kerchtog side, but a coalition C thing seems fine I guess. I'm definitely curious to know the full numbers. edit: I hate to DM Frawley who is already busy enough, so i'll use this post to post my offshores that havent yet been added to the stats in a non-annoying way and perhaps he just happens to see it by chance ? Reveal hidden contents https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/alliance/5933 https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/alliance/5944 https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/alliance/5956 https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/alliance/5965 https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/alliance/5983 https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/alliance/6000 https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/alliance/6022 https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/alliance/6030 I know your stance is profit above all else but you admitted yourself you have filled lucrative slots so kertog can't have them. This imo should be included in the damage done to coalition B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lu Xun Posted September 1, 2019 Share Posted September 1, 2019 That sort of defeats the purpose, then, doesn't it? Also, my full damage stats against KERCHTOG are not being properly included right now, which would add up to about 3.4bn damage. Quote . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menace Posted September 1, 2019 Share Posted September 1, 2019 On 8/30/2019 at 2:10 AM, Frawley said: Yeah, I think its been fixed now, LoD was on it. See above Its in the new site, this one was punched together mid-Knightfall and is a bit shit Can I have a link to the new site please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menace Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 @Frawley when i click on TFP for coalition B or Kertog it gives the same personal statistics, from our first entry in the war. At one point, I believe it gave different statistics. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Jordan Posted September 7, 2019 Share Posted September 7, 2019 Any update on fixing the stats for TFP @Frawley? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.