Jump to content

The current meta and you.


Prefontaine
 Share

The Current Meta and You.  

109 members have voted

  1. 1. Does the current Meta need to be changed



Recommended Posts

On 7/21/2019 at 1:19 AM, Prefontaine said:

Having the "underdog" side or losing side of a war having the option to fight back is usually considered a good thing. Is it if the way it happens is to keep extending the war? Would wars be better off so that when a side wins in the first few week(s) it becomes increasingly harder for the losing side to dig their way out of that say -100B hole they're in and try to level the field? I'm not saying the nuke bloc style is good or bad, or the IQ planes only strat is good or bad. I think it's good to have varying styles of play. However is the "extend a war for longer and longer periods of time in hopes of chipping away at that total losses number" a good way to be going forward?

This is a tough question. Changing it so it's harder for the underdog to fight back (making wars shorter) seems like a good thing, but with the current politics in Orbis it only makes the BK hegemony more powerful unless a big chunk breaks off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
 
 
 
0
 Advanced issues found
 
 
4
18 hours ago, Akuryo said:

In 2-3 years i suspect NPO will average something like 25 cities or more. Which based on the way the game is currently sounds awful. Mid tier suddenly being c25, or higher, sounds frankly insane. And boy would it suck for new alliances who'd have to tier to city 18 to even begin being relevant to anything. 

Oh god no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TheNG said:

First you guys can crush us easily. Then you would've won except for NPO. Then it's alright because "our whales will fund everything." Then you guys at least have better stats for now. What'll the next excuse be?

I mean, that's a pretty logical progression? We were crushing you easily, NPO did change the landscape of the war drastically, and throughout it all we've had better stats and have been flaunting them, ask Leo.

Like if you kick me in the shin and I say, "ouch my shin hurts", then you punch me in the stomach and I say, "ouch my stomach hurts", no one would logically say "I THOUGHT UR SHIN HURTS LIAR"

I expect better from you man.

Edited by Hodor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hodor said:

I mean, that's a pretty logical progression? We were crushing you easily, NPO did change the landscape of the war drastically, and throughout it all we've had better stats and have been flaunting them, ask Leo.

I expect better from you man.

I'm sure all your smaller buddies would be able to attest that they've been doing nothing but winning for a month, even before NPO entered lol. I'd rather win the war than have stats as my consolation prize, but whatever makes you guys happy. B6VCkJl.png

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

"They say the secret to success is being at the right place at the right time. But since you never know when the right time is going to be, I figure the trick is to find the right place and just hang around!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Kastor> He left and my !@#$ nation is !@#$ed up. And the Finance guy refuses to help. He just writes his !@#$ plays.

<Kastor> And laughs and shit.

<Kastor> And gives out !@#$ huge loans to Arthur James, that !@#$ bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

@Edward Longshanks or @Robot Santa or @Chief Wiggum can I get a thread lock? The thread has served its purpose and devolved from the point at hand. 

My bad, I do realize that my original post did not seem to be on topic but it was to illustrate that we can't even agree on the premise of your proposal "The barometer for who wins and loses in a war is often measured by the cost weighed upon the various sides."\


Edit: cus I couldn't resist, @Roquentin they didn't need you to balance after all! Don't worry, we too thought that we were winning pretty obviously, so no hard feelings.

12 minutes ago, TheNG said:

I'm sure all your smaller buddies would be able to attest that they've been doing nothing but winning for a month, even before NPO entered lol. I'd rather win the war than have stats as my consolation prize, but whatever makes you guys happy. 

 

Edited by Hodor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Hodor said:

My bad, I do realize that my original post did not seem to be on topic but it was to illustrate that we can't even agree on the premise of your proposal "The barometer for who wins and loses in a war is often measured by the cost weighed upon the various sides."\


Edit: cus I couldn't resist, @Roquentin they didn't need you to balance after all! Don't worry, we too thought that we were winning pretty obviously, so no hard feelings.

 

I do understand that things would polarize with the war a bit and there would be some drama. It’s not really one persons fault. The indication I needed I got from the poll which is around 3:1 of feeling there needs some change.

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

I do understand that things would polarize with the war a bit and there would be some drama. It’s not really one persons fault. The indication I needed I got from the poll which is around 3:1 of feeling there needs some change.

Look at who voted for what. It’s not the numbers but the poll is as biased as the end of year awards. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that wanting change is by itself a personal opinion (you may argue it is group mentality and a 'lack of information', but it remains a personal opinion regardless), I don't see how it can be biased as far as simply the 'poster's side' is concerned, to be honest. You do have an argument insofar as voter % from each side goes, however.

Edit: I've edited this four five times. I need sleep.

Edited by Dio Brando
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anybody thinks the current meta is alright, you’re blind as hell.

The meta was screwed a long time ago and remains so.

Best thing right now is simply go to a Paper, Rock, Scissors build.  At least every player will have a shot at fighting instead of logging in to seeing their nation blitzed to hell and back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson

I kind of look at these wars pretty simply, if a boxer is losing on points for 11 rounds and then gets a knockout punch in the 12th who wins the fight? the fighter who won 11 rounds or the fighter who knocked his opponent out.

See in this war if you agree or not, KETOG, Chaos both suffered in surf's up, does not matter who did the damage just what damage was taken, Chaos got an ass beaten and had taken 94.3b in infra damages, and KETOG got a slap with 34.4b infra damages, Now I know both KETOG and chaos will cry and downvote this however those numbers have to be taken in to account as you never rebuilt the fact you wish to ignore that point just proves you are relying on stats to win this war and not skill.

Now moving on to dialup war, sure Co B had taken a beating in the first few rounds, however we are only on round three and still got nine rounds to go and already the points are starting to favour Co B, what do you think the stats will say when we get to round 10 and 11? trust me Co A will not be able to brag about stats as Co B will be going for the knock out punch and not worry about the points, and to me within PnW a knock out punch will be when someone admits they can no longer keep fighting and throws in the towel.

Now we all know Co A think they have won this simply based on the current stats, but Co B is not done, the fighting will be dragged out, and with most of Co A dead in the water unable to fight and just getting beaten down and their whales hiding with max troops, ships, planes and ships its only a matter of time now.

So in closing, you can bash on about the stats or the plane stat or anything else you wish to try and drum up moral, but the winner will be the one who keeps fighting when the other wants to throw in the towel, me personally I am loving this war I hope it goes on for at least another three months, and if people quit and delete, well blame KETOG, Chaos and Rose who started this war. not those who want to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheNG said:

I'm sure all your smaller buddies would be able to attest that they've been doing nothing but winning for a month, even before NPO entered lol. I'd rather win the war than have stats as my consolation prize, but whatever makes you guys happy. B6VCkJl.png

As one of our smaller guys, yes, even we were winning. Do you have any idea how many times your massive lower tier launched counterblitzes on a 20-something member micro and failed?

Like 5 or 6 times. It was really damned pathetic. Probably would've kept going too, but then daddy BK noticed and knew if the job was gonna be done he had to do it himself.

So yes, you are correct ?

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

See in this war if you agree or not, KETOG, Chaos both suffered in surf's up, does not matter who did the damage just what damage was taken, Chaos got an ass beaten and had taken 94.3b in infra damages, and KETOG got a slap with 34.4b infra damages, Now I know both KETOG and chaos will cry and downvote this however those numbers have to be taken in to account as you never rebuilt the fact you wish to ignore that point just proves you are relying on stats to win this war and not skill.

 

3 hours ago, Micchan said:

If we ignore infra value you are still in negative for soldiers, tanks, air, ships, loot, and infra raw number, waiting for the next crazy explanation that you will manage to come up with :popcorn:

 

5 hours ago, Smith said:

The damage we took during Surf's Up was a sunk cost. That damage was going to happen regardless of whether this war happened or not. At the beginning of this war, Chaos and KETO had already taken massive damage (particularly Chaos) and were unable to generate revenue while BKsphere was plotting another dogpile and making money. Now both sides are in cinders and making minimal money.

From our perspective the only alternative to this would have been rebuilding and probably getting dogpiled by you 2 months from now (though I'm sure you are planning to do this even now).

Also, since we are talking stats, let's not forget the billions and billions of infra your side deleted. 

Peron_tomando_un_caf%C3%A9.jpg

Also, bringing that fact is a double-edged sword. Yes, those who had no infra worth destroying had no infra worth destroying. On the flip side, people who went in with 900 air as opposed to 1800, did damages that those 900 planes allowed them to do, as opposed to damages 1800 planes would've allowed them to do. We're well aware that we had less worth losing; we simply didn't deem that to be enough of a silver lining to offset our depleted military and spies, and simply rolled with it the way we did because we deemed that to be the best chance we had.

 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

I kind of look at these wars pretty simply, if a boxer is losing on points for 11 rounds and then gets a knockout punch in the 12th who wins the fight? the fighter who won 11 rounds or the fighter who knocked his opponent out.

Sure, but first and foremost, google bing, bang, bongo paragraph structure. It'll help reduce the redundancy in your writing.

Quote

See in this war if you agree or not, KETOG, Chaos both suffered in surf's up, does not matter who did the damage just what damage was taken, Chaos got an ass beaten and had taken 94.3b in infra damages, and KETOG got a slap with 34.4b infra damages, Now I know both KETOG and chaos will cry and downvote this however those numbers have to be taken in to account as you never rebuilt the fact you wish to ignore that point just proves you are relying on stats to win this war and not skill.

Aside from the poor attempt at trolling and use of crying. Let's address your actual arguments.

Let's use the analogy above. We're boxers. One boxer just got out of a pretty damaging fight only to immediately enter the ring against a healthy and larger opponent and has been kicking ass for 3 rounds. Pretty neat. No one is making predictions about the future on our end. We're talking about the here and now and the past 3 rounds.
 

Quote

Now moving on to dialup war, sure Co B had taken a beating in the first few rounds, however we are only on round three and still got nine rounds to go and already the points are starting to favour Co B, what do you think the stats will say when we get to round 10 and 11? trust me Co A will not be able to brag about stats as Co B will be going for the knock out punch and not worry about the points, and to me within PnW a knock out punch will be when someone admits they can no longer keep fighting and throws in the towel.

Your side can't agree whether or not you did take a beating, but I'm glad you agree that you have been taking a beating.

As for points, it all depends on what you count as points. Tell me your metrics and I'll be inclined to agree or disagree. Our metrics is the stat tracker. The stats still aren't favoring you consistently as I stated earlier, at the current rate you'd need to perform as well as you have on your best day 300 days in a row to score a draw in the 12th round. If you flip stats no one will be able to argue against that. IF

Quote

Now we all know Co A think they have won this simply based on the current stats, but Co B is not done, the fighting will be dragged out, and with most of Co A dead in the water unable to fight and just getting beaten down and their whales hiding with max troops, ships, planes and ships its only a matter of time now.

Redundant.

Quote

So in closing, you can bash on about the stats or the plane stat or anything else you wish to try and drum up moral, but the winner will be the one who keeps fighting when the other wants to throw in the towel, me personally I am loving this war I hope it goes on for at least another three months, and if people quit and delete, well blame KETOG, Chaos and Rose who started this war. not those who want to win.

A solid bing, bang, bongo conclusion. Well done, except for who started the war. It's not who throws the first punch in boxing who is the aggressor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Frawley
1 hour ago, Hodor said:

Let's use the analogy above. We're boxers. One boxer just got out of a pretty damaging fight only to immediately enter the ring against a healthy and larger opponent and has been kicking ass for 3 rounds. Pretty neat. No one is making predictions about the future on our end. We're talking about the here and now and the past 3 rounds.

The analogy doesn't make sense.

Given you had already lost your expensive infra, the marginal stat cost of attacking BK was low, you cannot lose what you do not have. Relatively cheap military units (aka what you actually use to deal damage), you had more of than the folks you attack in every category but planes where you had parity at worst down to the low mid tier and were outnumbered under 2k. Not to mention the advatange held by higher city nations being in range of lower city nations as they had no infra.

The stats were always going to be one sided because the most expensive thing (excluding random huge loots) that can be destroyed is infra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frawley said:

The analogy doesn't make sense.

Given you had already lost your expensive infra, the marginal stat cost of attacking BK was low, you cannot lose what you do not have. Relatively cheap military units (aka what you actually use to deal damage), you had more of than the folks you attack in every category but planes where you had parity at worst down to the low mid tier and were outnumbered under 2k. Not to mention the advatange held by higher city nations being in range of lower city nations as they had no infra.

The stats were always going to be one sided because the most expensive thing (excluding random huge loots) that can be destroyed is infra.

I accept all of that. The point was it was a bad analogy all along.

What I’m still curious about is how we measure the victor in a war. We can’t discount that we didn’t have all our expensive infra, and I’m not sure anyone is but what we certainly cannot do is somehow add it to your damages which is what was basically being proposed.

Additionally, I really still have not gotten an answer as to what winning is. My guess is at this point victory is only when you’ve filled every defensive slot of your opponent and are preventing any sort of remilitarization? That’s a pretty sound defeat I’d agree, but is that the definition?

 

It seems like we are actually more like the nuke bloc scenario in the first post if all that’s being said is true. You say our most expensive asset was already blown up, so we are actually better placed to fight a war of attrition, which means damages almost certainly won’t flip unless we choose our rebuys poorly.

help me understand

Edited by Hodor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Hodor said:

I accept all of that. The point was it was a bad analogy all along.

What I’m still curious about is how we measure the victor in a war. We can’t discount that we didn’t have all our expensive infra, and I’m not sure anyone is but what we certainly cannot do is somehow add it to your damages which is what was basically being proposed.

Additionally, I really still have not gotten an answer as to what winning is. My guess is at this point victory is only when you’ve filled every defensive slot of your opponent and are preventing any sort of remilitarization? That’s a pretty sound defeat I’d agree, but is that the definition?

We have always measured the victor in a war by who forces the other side to surrender/admit defeat etc Usually this will entail war goals being met. Sure it's nice for the stats to back the victory up, but stats can always be skewed due to various conditions. There's probably been plenty of people who have "won" the majority of their in-game wars and end up on the losing side. Ultimately it's the political victory which defines the war. In future years when you look back all that will matter is which coalition won and which one lost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statistics are not the basis upon which victory or defeat is decided. Victory occurs when an opponent cannot, or will not, fight on any longer. 

Statistics indicate nothing more than ongoing trends and the likely reasons for a victory or defeat, but that's about it. They certainly don't determine outright who wins or loses.a

A pyrrhic victory is still a victory at the end of the day. No one cares about pyrrhic defeats.

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something interesting that's being missed is that Coalition B isn't really making any progress as far as total damage. I have no clue how, but since about a week and a half ago when the dominant narrative was "well now Coalition B is going to start evening the damage a little since they've lost/sold all of their infra" they've gone from -300b damage to... -302b. I personally have been fighting 8ish coalition B members at a time with A TON of infra in each city, but my net damage has barely gone down (and should go up dramatically when I lose said infra). I think people are missing this aspect.

MR BOOTY IN DA HOUSE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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.