Planetarion Forums - View Single Post

DarkHeart · 8 Aug 2007, 19:33

Now we're getting somewhere jonny

The Assumed Scalability Fallacy is derived on the simple premise, that it's possible to manipulate a system to work in your favour (there has to be a successful system in place already for this to even be mentioned), in the case at hand we would be looking at reverse assumed scalability. What has worked on the large scale would not neccesarily work on the small scale is your obvious implication (what has worked for 4:3:7 might not neccesarily work for a terran in a smaller gal / alliance).

The data ad has allready posted would seem to concur, yet he made a very good point. Terrans need roids, and it is apparently fact they they have not been able to hold onto them.

But who is making the decisions as to who gets defence and who doesn't. The top 15 allies all have or are close to full quotas of players. Maybe allies should have looked at the terran deficiencies, realised that what ad said is true, and made a conscious effort to get their terran players covered (to keep hold of roids)

This is seemingly what has happened with 4:3:7. Would it neccesarily be a case of reverse assumed scalability factor. Between a 70 member alliance and a 70 member alliance. Between a 14 man gal and a 14 man gal.

The assumed scalability fallacy is at its very core large v small. You can remove the quantity of players or add an imbalance of quantity of players depending on what extreme you want to take the dataset to.

But there are 15 alliance with almost 70 members in each one, with 3 fleet slots each. The only weight in numbers would be of ship quantities, which at the very beginning of the round was 0 v 0.

The potential for all terran to achieve was there (and indeed on a larger scale, the potential for all alliances). You made a good point a while back that terrans shouldn't have to work harder (which I agree with), but meh once the stats are set, the amount of effort or lack of effort is down to the individuals and the alliances.

But really I think the points have been made by both sides. I'd like to see a bit more existentialism from the terrans, ad and others would like to see better stats for the terrans. I couldn't give a damn either way on the stats

8 Aug 2007, 19:33	#19
DarkHeart Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 383	Re: [Round 22] Terran success Now we're getting somewhere jonny The Assumed Scalability Fallacy is derived on the simple premise, that it's possible to manipulate a system to work in your favour (there has to be a successful system in place already for this to even be mentioned), in the case at hand we would be looking at reverse assumed scalability. What has worked on the large scale would not neccesarily work on the small scale is your obvious implication (what has worked for 4:3:7 might not neccesarily work for a terran in a smaller gal / alliance). The data ad has allready posted would seem to concur, yet he made a very good point. Terrans need roids, and it is apparently fact they they have not been able to hold onto them. But who is making the decisions as to who gets defence and who doesn't. The top 15 allies all have or are close to full quotas of players. Maybe allies should have looked at the terran deficiencies, realised that what ad said is true, and made a conscious effort to get their terran players covered (to keep hold of roids) This is seemingly what has happened with 4:3:7. Would it neccesarily be a case of reverse assumed scalability factor. Between a 70 member alliance and a 70 member alliance. Between a 14 man gal and a 14 man gal. The assumed scalability fallacy is at its very core large v small. You can remove the quantity of players or add an imbalance of quantity of players depending on what extreme you want to take the dataset to. But there are 15 alliance with almost 70 members in each one, with 3 fleet slots each. The only weight in numbers would be of ship quantities, which at the very beginning of the round was 0 v 0. The potential for all terran to achieve was there (and indeed on a larger scale, the potential for all alliances). You made a good point a while back that terrans shouldn't have to work harder (which I agree with), but meh once the stats are set, the amount of effort or lack of effort is down to the individuals and the alliances. But really I think the points have been made by both sides. I'd like to see a bit more existentialism from the terrans, ad and others would like to see better stats for the terrans. I couldn't give a damn either way on the stats