Jump to content

Alliance Membership Losses Over the Course of Dial Up War (June 17th to February 20th)


Roq
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Elijah Mikaelson

You know Goons went to over 100 members, you have them down as 59 members? plus they was not even about at the start of the war 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bjorn Ironside said:

You know Goons went to over 100 members, you have them down as 59 members? plus they was not even about at the start of the war 

I counted Goons at the date of their declaration of war at October 2nd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Given the weird nature of GPWC I wouldn't really count them for this.

Not counting GPWC, the alliances as a whole lost 1525 members.

5 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Your sheet further suffers inaccuracies for counting alliances which died as all their players deleting or going inactive. Ming was down to like 20-22 members when it peaced out, it was House Arryn merging that brought them back. 

 

I used the start and end dates of the war for the sake of those two dates being the start and end date. Only exceptions I allowed was for alliances that did not exist during the beginning date. The end date was never changed.

6 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

I was down to 16 when I peaced, at 36 when I re entered, and ended at 28, from a initial start in June of 25. That's -17. 

Also seems.to count VM nation's which is questionable.

 

Still very bad numbers even despite some inaccuracies like above, of course. 

The counting of VM nations is just a rather unfortunate draw back of using the stats website. I would have preferred more accurate numbers, but for now that's all I had/have access to. 

And agreed, the numbers are horrific. Given the counting of VM nations, the loss numbers are likely even higher than the 1525 number I said earlier.. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CitrusK said:

Not counting GPWC, the alliances as a whole lost 1525 members.

I used the start and end dates of the war for the sake of those two dates being the start and end date. Only exceptions I allowed was for alliances that did not exist during the beginning date. The end date was never changed.

The counting of VM nations is just a rather unfortunate draw back of using the stats website. I would have preferred more accurate numbers, but for now that's all I had/have access to. 

And agreed, the numbers are horrific. Given the counting of VM nations, the loss numbers are likely even higher than the 1525 number I said earlier.. 

Yeah I saw later in PW General ya used the in-game stat tracker which pretty much explains all my complaints lol. 

Still, nobody else went through the trouble of it, have an updoot ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2020 at 9:32 AM, Epi said:

Surprisingly, some alliances are totally unwilling to surrender and or to accept surrender. Weird. 

Move on. No one cares about your anti-Coalition A arguments. 

 

Anyways, I can attest to the inaccuracy of the Ming Empire’s memberships data. We pretty much got it back from a merge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Roberts said:

Didn't coalition A surrender tho ?

Oh, we tried. Several times, in fact.  Other side wouldn’t have it.  And when the tables were turned against B, Coalition A took the high road and white peaced with everyone instead of smashing some of their bankrupt alliances.    I think that’s worthy of everyone keeping in mind.  

I don’t want to see another dial up type of war while I’m in this game.   It was bad on so many different levels it’s not even funny.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kaz said:

Oh, we tried. Several times, in fact.  Other side wouldn’t have it.  And when the tables were turned against B, Coalition A took the high road and white peaced with everyone instead of smashing some of their bankrupt alliances.    I think that’s worthy of everyone keeping in mind.  

I don’t want to see another dial up type of war while I’m in this game.   It was bad on so many different levels it’s not even funny.  

The only reason it lasted that long was because NPO had a resource/cash farm keeping them afloat. So you likely won't see one again.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Epi said:

Lol, you're an idiot. I specifically indicated Coalition B. as well, you ####

 

Coalition A did surrender, but Coalition B tried to force it to accept each peace term one by one, which failed because of a leak. 

Also, calling me an idiot instead of being civil is immature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Epi said:

Thalmor already did a good enough job lol, you grave dug a post to drop shade :P.

I'm not going to go into depth today, but that's inaccurate, both sides held it up, arguing who did more is an excersize in futility. 

Fake news being spread by the defeated. Every post will be "I'm not going into depth today" because it is wrong.

Lxr4VfE.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Epi said:

Syndi wanted peace that cannot be said for the rest of Coalition A. At other points in time, nor can all of Coalition B. Be blamed for some alliances unwillingness to accept surrender.

Do you want the debate? I don't it's old news. I.e why I criticised someone bringing it up initially lol. 

I stopped reading after the first sentence because it's false.

  • Upvote 2

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Epi said:

Syndi wanted peace that cannot be said for the rest of Coalition A. At other points in time, nor can all of Coalition B. Be blamed for some alliances unwillingness to accept surrender.

Do you want the debate? I don't it's old news. I.e why I criticised someone bringing it up initially lol. 

Epi, as someone who was not in t$ but was involved in the highest level Coalition A leadership chats - I can tell you that you're wrong. Not only were we willing to peace, we were willing to surrender. We literally posted that we were willing to surrender on the forums. How can you skew that? How can you spin that into something where we weren't willing to surrender? Posting that on the forums hurt our internal position in the war and caused a lot of people to no longer give a damn about fighting (as it was an admission of defeat), but we were willing to do it for the sake of ending the war. 

How you can even debate with that is beyond me.

  • Upvote 1

image.gif.d80770bf646703bba00c14ad52088af9.gif

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.