Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

I think Hanzi's fundamental error is that he took one point in time, a singularly small data-set if there ever was one, and tried to extrapolate a trend from that. This is, obviously, retarded.

A more truthful depiction would have been to pick a series of data-points and tried to map an accurate current trend for each alliance to see how they would perform into the future. I won't bother to do this, as sandmans already plots the past and all you need to do is notice the lines have been drawing closer for quite some time now. It's not exactly rocket science to figure out what the trend would be.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

Actually, having a roidlead is what creates this line you are talking about. I could write a formula for you if you wanted to, but how does that help the common guy? Lets stick to roids and score, and leave the nonsense out.

Edit: By the way, in a game like this we play in the moment, and its impossible to create a function that is anywhere close to as correct as using the current roidlead one alliance has :)

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

btw ND, how's the sk galraiding on small planets working out for you guys?
growing an ever so large e-penis?

I salute you epic heroes of planetarion :salute:

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

indeed :) those were the days :D

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

What an utterly tragic win that would be. Hey guys, if you random roid newbies all round and get half your galaxy to suicide on your planet you too might win pa!

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

It'd still be one of this most honorable! elviz <3

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

haha. We both know planet race for #1 is retarded at times. But we have nothing to play for really atm. I m trying to help a couple of players to get good ranks.
Also, we werent exactly happy about it, but shit happens!

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

Vision & ND teaming up, VsN alone couldn't do much.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

why stop at nd... i think its the entire uni!

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

what!?

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

More than this, he reponded to the "apprime earns more per tick" claim by adding 15% income to the roids Apprime were infront of THINLYVEILEDTHREAT, when quite clearly they earn 15% more with all of their roids. I mean, as far as picking his posts apart you don't really have to even try, the gap between the 2 alliances is now 2.5 mill so them gaining 2 mill per day is pretty accurate considering the ticks were stopped for 24 hours. I understand he has to post some drivel and get the attention off Apprime that way, but if you want to manipulate things there are many better ways than just throwing out bullshit numbers.

Uh, not sure how you figured that out hut, it couldn't be more wrong though. Vision is looking really good based on these claims :)

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

As far as I'm aware it was excessum and vision who hit DLR. I certainly heard nothing about anyone else being involved although I imagine you could easily have received other random incs at the same time.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

I was even unaware we were doing this, yea, we built up some SK's after some ally (whom I will not mention) decided to SK our scanners! And a ship is a ship, btw, me e-penis is rather small, thinking of a sexchange tbh.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

http://89.145.83.129/sandmans/?p=com...50&type=values

That's starting from the time you made your statement, and ending at the time when you said they should catch up with Asc.

As we can see, App passed Asc on tick 838, which is 12 ticks before your 132 estimate. Seems reasonably close, right? Except that's a discrepancy of ~9,1%, or half a day wrong when you were only predicting 5,5 days ahead to begin with. By the time you predicted they should catch up, they had already established a 1mil lead.

So what went wrong? Well, maybe this graph can tell us:
http://89.145.83.129/sandmans/?p=com...40&type=values

Clearly the fact that you failed to account for current trends, as I stated earlier, threw your calculations off. During the 132 ticks in question, Apprime grew in roids by ~15% where as Asc only grew by ~8,7%. Further account for greater XP gains for App and subtract each alliances rate of losing value due to crashes or otherwise, and you've pretty much explained the whole 9,1% discrepancy.

I won't bother to do an analysis of what these trends had been prior to this period, as I'm quite confident they would align reasonably well with what the actual outcome was.

Oh, and don't worry, I don't think we'll be needing your services as a statistician any longer.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

Its called a prediction. I could devscan every planet in apprime and ascendancy to find the precise income a tick. Would not be a prediction anymore would it. About unexpected events like Asc slacking on the roiding, losing a member from tag, crashes, xp gains etc. If i could predict this as precise as i could with 110 devscans, i would at least have the decency to alert the 200,000 people who died in a certain tsunami, instead of using my godly skills to pull your pants down and shit in your doorstep.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

It appears you don't even understand what Tzu is saying :(

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

Actually it's just called being wrong hanzi.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

Yeah i dont deny it, nor do i care. I was hoping you would realize that its impossible to make accurate predictions without accurate info. Accurate info would be devscanning 110 planets and compare, then make a judgment based on the share valuegain a tick. One can never predict the unexpected, hence why its ****ing called unexpected. The information i had available was a roidcount, then assuming both alliances had the same average bonus/mines. For all i know, they do and you cant prove me wrong without establishing the income on those 110 planets.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

What do you mean 'prove you wrong'? You were wrong. Your prediction was wrong. We all said there were reasons why apprime would overtake ascendancy sooner than 132 ticks and you decided to stick your fingers in your ears and sing "lalalala I can't hear you". Nobody was implying your windows calculator was broken and was actually giving you inaccurate numbers when you tried to do multiplication.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

I stated that it would take 132 ticks if both alliances capped the same amount of roids, had the same XP gains, no alliances added/removed players from tag etc. To quote myself: "Apprime is only closing the gap because of your current inefficiency" Which clearly means that if Apprime managed to accumulate EVEN MORE score through roidgains and xp, it would only be because Apprime was a better performing alliance in that period, not only because of a roidlead which the calc was based on.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

Your problem is actually missing the basic point in my posts, which was that Apprime would unquestionably overtake Ascendancy, but until this happened there was no reason to downplay Ascendancys chances and make apprime look like an unstoppable force.
A possible situation would be Apprime overtaking Ascendancy, with a roidlead of 7k. Then a block hit Apprime and take away 5k roids, while Ascendancy cap 2k roids. In this situation both alliances would sit on the exact same score and roids. Until Apprime actually had overtaken Ascendancy, there was no reason to fill the forums with anti-apprime propagande.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

The politics were not built this way. They were built for stagnation at that time and still are - on what planet do you think that scenario is in any way probable?

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

Well, I was bored. So I traced it back another 132 ticks with 24 tick increments and made it into an Excel file. And added some other crap to make it clearer.

http://www.easy-share.com/1910034277...atapoints.xlsx

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

In fairness, Ascendancy kicked 2 people with a combined score of 4.5m. That was entirely unpredictable (even for people in Ascendancy) and not based on any data or argument you guys used to tell Hanzi he was wrong. Had things gone as you expected, his estimate would have been too low, rather than too high.

[edit] Never mind, I was just informed Apprime also kicked people, with about the same combined score. Even if it were unpredicted, it had no net influence.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

The only valid argument for making an accurate prediction is based on roids and value, anything else is unpredictable factors that can go both ways. If the difference in income between alliance A and alliance B stays the same, then you have a linear graph and will be able to predict the exact tick where they will be equal. If this prediction fails, then it means something unpredictable has occured.

Ive made it a point in several posts, that my predictions were solely based on roids/value, nothing else. You still don't see that when you talk about score, it involves all predictable/unpredictable events over a certain time period.

Please keep basing your arguments on unpredictable events, it boosts my ego and i like it.

Its ****ing impossible to predict anything at all based on these graphs, because for all we know, someone does humanity a favor and drops a nuclear bomb on a certain Baltic country, effectively taking 30mill score away from Apprime. How is that for a prediction to slam in the table?


Also congratulations for missing the whole point with the prediction, to say that there was no need for any anti-apprime propaganda as long as Apprime was behind Ascendancy. Maybe it was a bit too good.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

Yeah man. Apprime's higher activity levels leading to them capping more roids and xp in the meantime really was just as likely as someone nuking lithuania.

To be honest that boosted ego of yours is probably more likely to be a brain tumour.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

So while i make a prediction based on roids/value, you choose to add a little Jonnyflavor to your soup and claim that your monkey cant jump as high as mine?
There is nothing stopping Ascendancy from capping the same as Apprime.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

Let me get this right. The only things, if we're trying to make a prediction, that we should consider in pa are roids/value? So pre-round, when nobody has any advantage, any prediction of any alliance to win is as good as any other prediction?



Edit: This is, honest to god, the worst argument I can remember encountering on AD. Most other arguments rely on obfuscating the truth or selective fact-picking but you're outright denying that any sort of factors like activity or previous history or fleet composition or player skill can be included in a prediction. A ten year old could tell you that's ridiculous.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

Right, here's a graph showing Apprime versus THINLYVEILEDTHREAT from the position of near roid parity at tick 530, when the round settled into it's current political course.

Size growth shows general momentum. By "momentum" I mean general ability to cap roids on a regular basis, it can also be reflective of activity. The political situation at the time of your prediction was also pretty steady so we can't really say general politics changed to affect things. Particularly in a round as politically turgid as this one.

Both alliances have pretty steady rates of size growth, Apprime's being much greater than THINLYVEILEDTHREAT, because they have more momentum. The greater the gap in roids, the higher rate of value growth and as the round progresses, value becomes more influential with respect to score. Once again, score growth is greatly in favour of Apprime.

This is why Apprime were catching THINLYVEILEDTHREAT at an increasing rate. You can see this from the shape of the curves, which because both alliances don't kick many players or drop ****tons of value, are very smooth.

On that basis, you can look at sandmans in about 10 seconds and make an accurate prediction as to where both alliances are going to go. The entire basis of your analysis is wrong, which is why your conclusion is wrong.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

A prediction is based on whatever you want it to be based on. The roidlead was 7k roids, which gives a steady growth. Unknown factors as mining bonus, number of mines, core research is likely to be equal.
If you do the job and find out exactly how much Apprime and Ascendancy makes, be my guest. It does however not change the fact roids/value is a solid, hardcoded and predictable feature that you can rely on.

You are free to base predictions on things like skill/activity/history, but then its not based on hard-coded features, but assumptions. I specifically said that my prediction was based on the roidlead, and i did not mix assumptions with facts. The only reason Apprime accumulated score faster then predicted was because it was a better alliance in that period of time. Both alliances had equal chances, but Apprime was better at getting roids/xp. At the same time both alliances kicked out members which influenced the scoregap greatly. Sadly someone used it as an argument to prove me wrong. Brainaids anyone?

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

Graphs mean **** all lokken, it does not mean this will be the trend from now to ****ing forever. Ascendancy can get a grip and start performing better as of tomorrow if they want to. This will immediately change your precious graph and jizz on your assumptions. Thats the point.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

It does when you're considering long term political trends that aren't going to change. Activity does not just improve 'overnight' particularly when alliance gets set into one pattern of activity, certainly not consistently. I think this is a fair assumption to make from my experience, because what you're suggesting is easier said than done. This round is one of the most stagnant ever, thus making predictions based on graphs much, much easier than normal.

If the political situation changed this is what would happen: Roid growths/losses of both alliances would probably change, and thus differences between roid growth would change, reflecting a change in score growth. The point is that in this period nothing of the sort happened, nothing was forseeably going to happen, nothing is likely to happen, which is why your 'nuclear' analysis doesn't really hold any weight. There is no Deus Ex Machina in the play here as you would like to pretend.

Things have been pretty set in stone for a while now, hence my fantastic prediction around that time. Unless of course Apprime don't have a NAP with Vision.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

Actually this is just too stupid, i no longer bother to reply on this matter.
Every single day I have to prove all my work/arguments with hard facts. Luckily i dont have someone telling me im wrong just because something unexpected happens, because that would be hilarious.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

I think the whole issue is that you didn't expect it (while lokken & co did). Unless you take factors other than current score and current size into account, your predictions are always going to be wrong.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

The problem you are having, Hanzi, is that you are simply confused about how probability works.

If two outcomes are possible, that does not imply they are equally probable. Even if they are the only two outcomes possible, say either App will overtake Asc or it won't, without specifying a timeframe, the outcomes still have different weights, different probabilities. By identifying patterns and trends and identifying different factors contributions to these trends, we can assign them different predicting values. By calculating the risks involved in each assumption, we can asses the likelyhood of a default, and control for it.

The key here is large data sets. Where as it's impossible to say what will happen any given tick, any more than it's possible to say how long any given person will live, reality still tends to follow a bell-curve and regress towards the mean, allowing insurance companies to predict the average lifespan of their policyholders by controlling for risk factors, and allowing us to predict how an alliance will perform over a period of time.

In essence, you made a similar prediction, however you did not control for most variables, and you used only one point of data. Had you included multiple data points, you would have deduced that there was a discrepancy in your calculations, and you wouldn't have made such a foolish prediction as a specific tick.

This is all basic statistics.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

So much BS about non important things. Congrats VSN, you win this round and thats only things what matters :D Awesome move to nap ND and secure the spot. Nicely played round and well done politics to nail it in the end.

Not like some who started naping everyone (even naped the main competitor for win) and yet failed (HI ND) :D

Once again congrats VSN, enjoy your win and let losers make schemes who will finish 3-4-5-9999, like it matters lol.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

ND NAPed Vision after they'd lost the #1 spot. I don't think anyone in ND actually thought that that move helped in terms of getting #1. Much like other alliances this round they'd decided to abandon aiming for #1 and secure their alliance's position through other means.

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

Securing position? Secured position doesnt get you win does it ? :D

If they wanted to NAP someone, they should have worked with some enemy on common goal ie taking VSN down. Risking instead of making stalemate...

Re: Vision/newdawn nap
 

Always good to read before you post.