Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
I dont see how you can compare last round to this round.. when this round, we have 4 alliances who are close enough to fight for #1. While last round we only had 2 with the universe hating 1 of them 
but yes, lets twist a quote from last round which was based on an entirely different situation and make it fit the context you want. |
You seem more than happy to benefit from such a tactic (and indeed suggest another alliance deserves it for what was pretty much existing in the #1 spot through no fault of their own), yet suddenly when the same tactic is up for discussion suddenly it's 'bad politics'. You still seem keen to frame it in the same "all versus one" scenario when it suits yet by the same hand clamour that "it's a different situation that makes it totally unfair". You're the one applying double standards here and don't think otherwise.
But anyway, some MS Paint analysis so people can see the current situation for themselves outside of the hysteria:
http://yfrog.com/4zr32graphp
As it's early on in the round, XP (and maybe even roid cap) massively distorts score gains and value hasn't really shown who can dominate yet, so I've focused on roid counts as at this stage its probably the best indicator for success. Why? It shows who is making consistent gains and most important of all, who is able to defend in the face of random incoming: if you can defend at this stage its a massive bonus and bodes very well for the future.
As you can see from the graph, Apprime is massively outroiding its opposition, who are getting relatively modest gains. Once the round really got going after week 1 (that's about 168 ticks), we've seen them as very efficient roiders. Their graph looks very reminiscent of Ascendancy graphs I've seen from r30/31 when we've gone a run of days consistently roiding (note the 'hops' on the graph).
At this stage the margins look small in score (I haven't posted them but you can look them up quite easily) and seem relatively harmless, but as you can see from the trend lines, the gap in income is going to become larger quite soon. While this doesn't mean 'domination' it does give a basis for an alliance to outgrow another one and dominate in the long term. As you can see i've accounted for this for by circling the tick where Apprime started to build some breathing space over second and third (although in the context of the round that gap is currently insignificant).
Obviously this is very early in the round and a bit of cack handed analysis. Later in the round it's possible to do something with a bit more depth with sandmans graphs. But I thought the graph gave a few initial conclusions that we can draw from the first 10 days or so. This graph does not show that Apprime will dominate; it simply shows that they could.
People are free to conclude from this what political moves are necessary and what should be done to address this. I make no recommendations as to what to do next except that people would do well to look at the data and use their experience of previous rounds to make a decision on the best move.