Jump to content
Frawley

War Stats: Global War 14

Recommended Posts

1.046B... Knightfall dethroned and we aren't even at the half of its duration 😎

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hows the coalition stats page going? Any estimate when it will be back?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, alyster said:

Hows the coalition stats page going? Any estimate when it will be back?

When BK will reach positive net damage after attacking enough innocent alliances /irony

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Micchan said:

When BK will reach positive net damage after attacking enough innocent alliances /irony

It isn't irony if it is true :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ever run donation drive for the server upkeep make it public.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, alyster said:

If you ever run donation drive for the server upkeep make it public.

Ditto this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I added 80 odd banking AAs last night, please let me know if yours are still missing.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frawley said:

I added 80 odd banking AAs last night, please let me know if yours are still missing.

I don't know how you're pulling data but just out of curiosity/wondering if this would make your life easier, is it possible/easier to focus on the nations that usually make up these bank AAs, since they tend to stay relatively constant, or to pull from the bank AAs themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new version, which LoD amd I will probably release post war does exactly that.  But it is a major change to the backend of the current system (which was scraped together in a hurry in Knightfall) and can't unfortunately be done. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in town for a day before leaving again. I've noticed Yarr has been added to the coalition stats. This needs to be corrected. Yarr is not apart of this war. You may create a new war stat page for a separate conflict if you wish or at the very least a separate third front, but we are in no way tied to the current war. Your inclusion of our alliance, against our will, is a clear demonstration of this tool being used in a biased manner. The alliances in charge of this stat tracking do not get to control other alliances sovereignty. Yarr is not part of Coalition A, or B. You do not get to force us into a side or a war we are not a part of. Please edit this error. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't for the global war, but it's a few corrections for the PO vs DB war. Many of our initial wars aren't included in the war stats, the war stats says that Blackatron only had one offensive war when in fact he's had six. That's generally been the same across the board. I think our damage is closer to 15 bil than the 5 bil you've got there with all the wars factored in.

Another thing is including GoTG in the war stats too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

I'm in town for a day before leaving again. I've noticed Yarr has been added to the coalition stats. This needs to be corrected. Yarr is not apart of this war. You may create a new war stat page for a separate conflict if you wish or at the very least a separate third front, but we are in no way tied to the current war. Your inclusion of our alliance, against our will, is a clear demonstration of this tool being used in a biased manner. The alliances in charge of this stat tracking do not get to control other alliances sovereignty. Yarr is not part of Coalition A, or B. You do not get to force us into a side or a war we are not a part of. Please edit this error. 

You were attacked due to connections to Rose, and Swagger to you. Therefore when attacked it was an expansion of the current war vs a separate war (Like The DB  war). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

First, Swagrr has no treaty with Yarr, it was cancelled around a week after they started.

Second, you do not get to put us on a side of a war. You might have attacked us because you viewed us as part of their side, however you do not get to determine the side Yarr is on. Yarr gets to decide what side we are on. Just because you attack us does not make us allies of or on the same side as others you attacked. BK, or anyone else fighting us does not get to dictate Yarr foreign policy. I cannot emphasize that enough. We are not a part of Coalition A. If Someone from Coalition A attacked us it does not put us on Coalition B. Yarr, and Yarr alone determines which side, if any, they fall on in a global conflict. Yarr has stated numerous times that it has no desire to join any side in this war and is a neutral entity. You have no alternative other than to accept that decision whether your attacking us or not. 

 

On a more esoteric level, does this mean I should remove the Statpads that both sides have dragged into the war?

I mean you could also argue that t$ (not saying you are a Statpad btw) was not part of Coalition B either, and that would massively boost the stats for Coaltion B given how negative they were on net damage.

I think we need some community consensus on this matter, but I don't think that it should be entirely at either individual parties discretion either. Do uninvolved (non-BK/Yarr) have thoughts on the matter?

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

On a more esoteric level, does this mean I should remove the Statpads that both sides have dragged into the war?

I mean you could also argue that t$ (not saying you are a Statpad btw) was not part of Coalition B either, and that would massively boost the stats for Coaltion B given how negative they were on net damage.

I think we need some community consensus on this matter, but I don't think that it should be entirely at either individual parties discretion either. Do uninvolved (non-BK/Yarr) have thoughts on the matter?

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes 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. 

The point I'm trying to make is there are a tonne of alliances in the war right now, on both sides who were uninvolved protectorates, who have had zero say in their assignment, and the generally rule has been, treaty means you are in.

This is why I'm saying the community needs to agree on something consistent that I can apply. If I remove you, I have to remove probably upwards of 15 alliances in the same position.

So lets agree on a solution first.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should be upto the alliance involved to choose if they're fighting on behalf of a coilotion unless there is a active o/mdp treaty.

I'm just a nobody but this is what I would suggest. 

1. Alliance's with a o/mdp treaty are automatically placed in the coilotion they're closest to. 

2. Any alliance seen to be fighting both coilotions should be removed from global war stats. 

3. If a paperless / protectorate gets involved it should be upto them if they're to be counted in a coilotion. 

4. Main alliance's in a coilotion can ask for a paperless alliance to be removed from their coilotion stats. 

@Frawleylet me know your thoughts on my ideas 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

You were attacked due to connections to Rose, and Swagger to you. Therefore when attacked it was an expansion of the current war vs a separate war (Like The DB  war). 

Lol you're still trying to cite a literally non-existent treaty tie? Sorry but reality doesn't actually change to fit your narratives no matter how much you think it does :P

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.