Jump to content
Ripper

It's Time to Stop #2!

Recommended Posts

ObeseIllImperatorangel-size_restricted.gif

Less propaganda and more ellies, please. ~Carthago

Edited by Daveth
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

The more one reads these forums, the more IQ points one is surrendering.

You're in tCW. You've lost all the IQ points you had.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


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

Mine was better. More detailed, more numbers, more logic. 

That's the point of using references. You can skip the baseline work and move forward from there. For science!

Anyway, you may have more detail and numbers, but we both have the same amount of "logic".

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just here so I don't get fined

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Micros dropping out of a war they weren't prepared for isn't as impactful as a prepared and prominent alliance losing half its member base.

Instead of showing this meaningless dribble, how about showing the same member retention stat format but for Coalition B?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Malleator said:

Micros dropping out of a war they weren't prepared for isn't as impactful as a prepared and prominent alliance losing half its member base.

Thanks for spotting the mistake in this logic. Since the logic I used though is this of AK, then we could transform your statement to...

10 minutes ago, Malleator said:

Members dropping out of a war that they weren't prepared for isn't the same with prepared and prominent members staying behind.

... which is our answer to Skae's post.

Assuming that the quality of members remaining in our alliances is the same with the ones that have already left is illogical.

Anyway, I had to do it in a round-about way, but it looks like you see the fallacy (and bad math) in Skae's post. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Skae said:

Even member like Seb left you to join grumpy, and you call them weak. 

 

The same Seb that we recently found out cheated to avoid a bank being hit and is currently hiding in VM mode?

Edited by Kevanovia
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has certainly been some sifting going on, separating the good from the bad, both within and across alliances. But it would be an overstatement to say that those members who have left their alliances and those alliances who have left their coalitions had *no* worth. Every departure causes damage, in some cases small, in some cases big. But what's happened has happened... the damage has been done... Orbis will come out lesser from this war.

I guess the question is, going forward, do leaders care more about their alliance or about the coalition they are in? Every nation and alliance still standing have proven their worth ... there is no shame in laying down one's arms after a struggle of this magnitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Skae said:

So are you implying that more than 50% of CoS wasn't quality? Do you realize how absurd that is when it was the same CoS who was vital in taking down Grumpy and Guardian in Knightfall? That sure is a way to talk about your own alliance that you are the leader of. Even member like Seb left you to join grumpy, and you call them weak. 

No idea where you get that 50% number from. I am no leader of CoS. No idea where I said that those members are "weak".

Regarding Seb, he did leave CoS (before this war) exactly because he was "weak" and wanted to hide in GOB. And that's the reason he is in VM right now.

9 minutes ago, Skae said:

I'm cherishing members and naming their value, while you name them useless.

I never called anyone useless...

9 minutes ago, Skae said:

 Every member is valuable as long as they actively fight. Not only did I count deserters, I counted purple inactives. Those members aren't helping your cause as they sit with no mil and nothing to gain

but appartently... you are calling our non-fighting members useless... That's different from the previous quote. I am getting confused here.

9 minutes ago, Skae said:

while we have members with mil and a net positive revenue. 

And we have members with 0 military and same amount of infra. Guess whose revenue is higher.

With almost all of your members at sub-1k infra levels, there is not much need to actually fight. Those that want action will fight. The rest will go inactive and log-in every now and then. It's as simple as that.

Edited by Ripper
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tarroc said:

Score stats

So in summary, yes @Ripper, there have been a number of alliances on your side who have surrendered, but just because an alliance doesn’t formally surrender doesn’t mean it isn’t done for. KERCHTOG and Chaos have been beaten into a bloody pulp. You’ll have to forgive me for not being impressed by these corpses haven’t yet officially surrendered. 

Not sure what score changes prove. If you are implying that below a specific score (change) an alliance has lost/surrendered by default... well, that's kinda strange.

15 minutes ago, Tarroc said:

Rose is at 0.299% ... and more stats

I think you mean 29.9% or something like this. Unless you have something different in mind.

14 minutes ago, Tarroc said:

Guardian has gone from 195,810 score back on June 15 down to 52,801.40 score on September 7. Have to wonder, for the oldest alliance in the game, they haven’t yet learned the recent lesson that fighting on the side of TKR doesn’t end well for you. Maybe they’re getting senile in their old age, along with Grumpy.

It looks like Guardian is in a tough spot. They fought at the side of TKR in Knightfall. Fought against TKR 3 months ago... Have to fight alongside with TKR now... It's strange, isn't it?

17 minutes ago, Tarroc said:

Felandia has practically quit the game, Seb has quit the war and is just hiding in vacation mode. Such a valued ally in this war, indeed.

It's exactly that type of people that made me want to fight GOB in Knightfall, so I am neither surprised nor sad they've left. Quite the opposite. :P

 

Edited by Ripper
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Don't if Yakuza has surrendered yet..." Don't matter, they're basically dead. Yakuza was a nothing that did nothing and could do nothing before EM, now with him, his money, and half the alliances actual members who werent people there to be part of EM's city program, it will return to the reigns of the guy who made it nothing, all while being crippled from the war and accompanying exodus.

Rest in Pepperonis, Yakuza.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ripper said:

Not sure what score changes prove. If you are implying that below a specific score (change) an alliance has lost/surrendered by default... well, that's kinda strange.

I think you mean 29.9% or something like this. Unless you have something different in mind.

It looks like Guardian is in a tough spot. They fought at the side of TKR in Knightfall. Fought against TKR 3 months ago... Have to fight alongside with TKR now... It's strange, isn't it?

It's exactly that type of people that made me want to fight GOB in Knightfall, so I am neither surprised nor sad they've left. Quite the opposite. :P

 

I'm not implying a certain score loss causes an alliance to surrender. What I am implying though, is that an alliance's score is made out of member scores, and member scores are made out of things such as infa, cities, military, and projects. Due to the fact that cities can not be destroyed, unless Alex wants to change that in the future, and only the project's owner can delete the project, the decreasing score points to a decreasing amount of military, which is indicative of an alliance's ability to fight, and a decreasing amount of infa, which is how the cities of the nation function, and the nation generally needs the cities to function in order for the nation to function, and when a number of nations are unable to function, that leads to the alliance having a growing percentage of its membership unable to participate in the war, and that is generally what causes an alliance to surrender..

0.29 and 29% are pretty much the same thing. They both operate under the pretense of trying to reach a whole. For 29% the whole is 100% and for 0.29% the whole is 1.0. 

Guardian should just stay out of the wars, they've been getting pretty battered, but I'll leave that decision to Memph and Venek, and as for the GoB situation, I have to agree with you. Grumpy is an alliance of cowards and war dodgers, trying to hide with their high nation scores, out of anyone's war range. Makes it all the more satisfying to drag them down and beat them senseless.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tarroc said:

I'm not implying a certain score loss causes an alliance to surrender. What I am implying though, is that an alliance's score is made out of member scores, and member scores are made out of things such as infa, cities, military, and projects. Due to the fact that cities can not be destroyed, unless Alex wants to change that in the future, and only the project's owner can delete the project, the decreasing score points to a decreasing amount of military, which is indicative of an alliance's ability to fight, and a decreasing amount of infa, which is how the cities of the nation function, and the nation generally needs the cities to function in order for the nation to function, and when a number of nations are unable to function, that leads to the alliance having a growing percentage of its membership unable to participate in the war, and that is generally what causes an alliance to surrender.

Our side is at sub 1k infra-level. Your side is at sub 1k infra-level. We have no military. You have military expenses. One could state that we actually make more money than you.

I mean, you are free to keep 40k tanks, 3k aircraft and 400 ships, while having 700 infra. I will just keep the same amount of infra with zero military expenses. Not sure why me having  no military would make me the loser of this state. xD

12 minutes ago, Tarroc said:

0.29 and 29% are pretty much the same thing. They both operate under the pretense of trying to reach a whole. For 29% the whole is 100% and for 0.29% the whole is 1.0. 

Well... no.

For 29% ( % = per cent = out of 100) the whole is indeed 100% (100 out of 100 = 100/100).

For 0.29 (relative number), you can expect the whole to be 1.0. No % symbol used.

For 0.29% (0.29 out of 100), the whole is yet again 100%.

So, 0.29% actually translates to 0.29/100 = 0.0029 out of 1.0.

12 minutes ago, Tarroc said:

Grumpy is an alliance of cowards and war dodgers, trying to hide with their high nation scores, out of anyone's war range. Makes it all the more satisfying to drag them down and beat them senseless.

I feel you. Been there. Done that. :v

 

P.S. Speaking of money... Your cities are out of power... Ask for some uranium from BK.

Edited by Ripper
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tarroc said:

0.29 and 29% are pretty much the same thing. They both operate under the pretense of trying to reach a whole. For 29% the whole is 100% and for 0.29% the whole is 1.0.

Please delete this fast.

  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Please delete this fast.

Can I keep a screenshot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tarroc said:

0.29 and 29% are pretty much the same thing. They both operate under the pretense of trying to reach a whole. For 29% the whole is 100% and for 0.29% the whole is 1.0. 

Leave the math to the professionals, sport.

  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ripper i compared myself up with a c20 NPO a while ago and found that me at 400 infra with only soldiers and a few ships made more money than they did at 800 with max planes and soldiers, and that was before raiding. 

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

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.