R60 inc stats discussion

[BloodyButcher]

So any suprises?

[HeimdallR]

<@Londo> but 5.1's stats were cool: most incoming attacks, most incoming friendlies, most ingal defences

Not really surprising, but best gal i ever been in as well. Alot of gals would have crumbled with this.

#1 - booji - p3nguins
#2 - zonny - RainbowS
#3 - Heimdall - ODDR
#4 - Golden - RainbowS
#5 - Londo - p3nguins
#6 - Swing - Ultores
#7 - Rain - Ultores
#8 - Villeh - Conspiracy
#9 - Arty - Black Flag
#10 - Jenova
#11 - TheoDD - Ascendancy
#12 - LukeyLove
#13 - Virall - Black Flag

[[DDK]gm]

I knew CT would be the most attacking alliance but never thought we would also have the most incs. I thought P3ng would have that one.

[[B5]Londo]

Originally Posted by [B5]Londo

I would be very surprised if BF were to turn out to have had the most incomings this round! It is surely quite likely to be ult, since they have sat back and defended all the last week

I guess I rather misjudged that given Ult ended up 5th in incs, even less than BF.

[Munkee]

Originally Posted by [DDK]gm

I knew CT would be the most attacking alliance but never thought we would also have the most incs. I thought P3ng would have that one.

We had 3 less members in the end due to kicking some which may have skewed the figures?

[booji]

Originally Posted by [DDK]gm

I knew CT would be the most attacking alliance but never thought we would also have the most incs. I thought P3ng would have that one.

During the last five days or so CT gave us the most inc out of everyone... which just shows how little inc we had during the last five days. Essentially p3n was dead and utterly useless as targets by that point! If we had held out longer we would have had it.

The other thing to point out is that all these FR ppl were usually less likely to go for us with big cr/bs fleets as random incs so we had comparatively little until the wars kicked off as well.

Originally Posted by Munkee

We had 3 less members in the end due to kicking some which may have skewed the figures?

Include the 85 incs blink had and p3n have most hostiles. Blink was a member until 2 days before round end.

[BloodyButcher]

I dont think the CR/BS stopped us from attacking you, just the fact p3ng have been cry babies in the past when their forts got targetted. So we were switching on who to attack untill BF started crying and declared war, wich p3ng used to do in the past

[booji]

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher

I dont think the CR/BS stopped us from attacking you, just the fact p3ng have been cry babies in the past when their forts got targetted. So we were switching on who to attack untill BF started crying and declared war, wich p3ng used to do in the past

In which case you come up with an explanation for why we had very few incs during periods we were not at war please... We did not have a large number of naps which would be the normal explanation.

My main point was that for fr the obvious target was other fr when given a free choice on a gal raid. In exactly the same way people with lots of cr/bs or lots of fi/co got picked first on p3n raids.

Edit: BB I did not realise rainbows had a fr strategy, certainly the rainbows ppl I know were not following it if you did, so my comment was not aimed at you in the first place.

[BloodyButcher]

Our strategy was FR with some CAT CR, but we were only 30 at tick start, so thats why it was mixed.

Nobody usualy wants to kick someone laying down, and there was major wars going on for majority of the round.
BF vs BowS, and CT vs ND, and you were naped with FL/Vikings/HR?
Who were going to attack you?

[booji]

I am talking first few hundred ticks here, before any wars (or naps) had kicked off. After the wars started we only had brief periods without being at war with anyone too, one for just about a week after our first war with Ult, then the last four days. Hence why I am talking about random incs when being gal raided.

I am not aware of a nap with HR during the round. They briefly cooperated with us in hitting BF - but then so to did rainbows at this time.

[Bane]

Lets change the thread name to "5:1 vs emo alliances"

[BloodyButcher]

NAPs were set preround, and certainly to my memory we had a nap with CT when they were with war on ND.

And the fact that you were capital hulls should mean that perhaps the first few days other allies might been fatter

[Munkee]

Our only naps were with fl and Vikings. No others.

[booji]

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher

And the fact that you were capital hulls should mean that perhaps the first few days other allies might been fatter

HAHA did not think of that... perhaps even more pertinently not everyone will have had their cruisers and battleships to scare attackers away.

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by booji

HAHA did not think of that... perhaps even more pertinently not everyone will have had their cruisers and battleships to scare attackers away.

Now, im not sure we are in agreement if ur CR/BS scared anything away

[booji]

I still think it will have reduced random incs throughout the round from anyone with fr/de. PA players are rational. They hit the easier targets. For any fr/de player it makes sense not to hit someone with a mass of cr/bs (unless they are cat) if there are other easier targets available. I was told multiple times that I was up for several waves from BF. A couple of times I was not claimed at all and most others I only got one wave on me. Yes I was probably never the fattest target but throughout the round I received almost no random incs. This may be entirely down to munkee's politics but I doubt it.

What I was not saying was that it would discourage alliances from hitting p3n as a whole. I don't believe that at all. Occasionally a race strategy is so good against yours you dont want to fight it no matter what but that does not happen often and was not the case here.

[BloodyButcher]

1/4 of the univers was Xan, wich COULD NOT at all be attacked.
A lot if these in Ult/BF forts, why on earth do you think they would be picked i favour of p3ng forts basicly WITHOUT xans?
Im not trying to flame you, just try warn you off to make strategical suggestions to any further stats, its idea like this wich got us into troubles in the first place with this rounds stats.

[booji]

My argument is not about bcs but about players picking among options that are up in the raid. It is unusual for BCs to pick so bad a target that they would have to change it because of the ships it turns out to have in it and I don't believe this would have happened in this case.

Xans got to broadswords much later than most of p3n did to cr/bs. I spent quite some time hitting xans that were not even on hulls 2 let alone hulls 3 with my bs (and I was not exactly fast getting there having done magma first).

Although you say rainbows was a fr/de alliance in practice most of the fr alliances were napped with each other and so wont have been targeting those BF and Ult forts. What they will have been doing however is targeting whole galaxies at which point the slightly harder to hit p3n's within those galaxies will have received less waves than easier to hit fr people within those targeted galaxies.

I get the impression you were thinking initially from an alliance standpoint (understandable as you are a HC) when I was thinking from an individual player standpoint.

[BloodyButcher]

PA does not work based on individuals perspective. IsildurX argued how the stats was set up on a players perspective, it ended in tears.
Peons dont pick targets, they get them dealt, if there were a lot of heavy ships, they perhaps had to double their teamups.
Does this mean less incs? No.
Less waves? Most likely.

[[B5]Londo]

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher

Peons dont pick targets, they get them dealt, if there were a lot of heavy ships, they perhaps had to double their teamups.

Maybe BowS target assigned for everyone!
However, other than TA, that is total nonsense; ppl go off raid all the time! and it is rare for the raid to be totally full so the hard targets do get left with one wave or none. So long as the overall coverage is not poor BCs will usually open more waves rather than have the members whine about having to hit the bad targets.

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher

Does this mean less incs? No.
Less waves? Most likely.

I can only say this didnt happen in the case of booji & I. I was hit by many more incs than booji (booji got 30 incs I got 94 because as etd I was emp focussed). Since we were both p3n and in the same gal I cant believe we were not both on the same raids yet most nights I had incs booji had none. I got wtf lolwaves he did not. This was even true when I was on 800 roids he was on 1600 and we were not very far appart in value.

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by [B5]Londo

Maybe BowS target assigned for everyone!
However, other than TA, that is total nonsense; ppl go off raid all the time! and it is rare for the raid to be totally full so the hard targets do get left with one wave or none. So long as the overall coverage is not poor BCs will usually open more waves rather than have the members whine about having to hit the bad targets.

Very few alliances allow members going off raid.
Being caught going off raid multiple times, without it being authorized, usualy result in getting kicked, atleast that is the law in bows.
Obviously p3ng seems to be runned diffrently, perhaps why theyve caught up with reality.
Ive heard from other HCs that they belive p3ng had it easy the last rounds, and that obviously seems to be the truth if you allow off raid attacks and have members using their time on whining instead of creating bigger waves.
Being in a top alliance requires you to some times attack crap targets, winning alliances in the past(Spore/FAnG/1up) had members knowing and accepting this.

[[B5]Londo]

They dont allow off raid ofc. But I dont believe this means it doesnt happen. They did however open 4th or 5th waves before targets were even 3/4 booked.
U seem to have trouble accepting that people vote with their feet and hit the easy targets (emp: thats me, rather than wyverns; thats booji) despite the evidence that this was obviously what was happening.
Now perhaps we would have had it different if Ult had hit 5.1 more rather than BF (who must have been 2/3 of my incs). But I can only write of my own experience.

[booji]

I am not even talking about going off raid though. I am talking about a target picking in which there is a galaxy or a couple of galaxies up. It is rare in such instance to get every wave on every target filled unless the BCs have underestimated members appetite to attack that night.

Under such circumstances the targets that are considered easy are picked first. Those considered harder are taken later, or if there are free targets sometimes not all all. This is what I meant. Not anything about whether BCs would put them in the raid or not. Not anything about alliances avoiding certain galaxies. Not about when alliances are ptargeting one alliance. And not anything about attacking outside the official raid.

How is this so hard to understand?

[[B5]Londo]

Originally Posted by booji

... the targets that are considered easy are picked first. Those considered harder are taken later...

This is a reason why this

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher

Does this mean less incs? No.
Less waves? Most likely.

Is not true even though logic suggests that a hard target ought to get bigger teams. The hard targets being picked later means there are fewer people left loitering looking for a teamup when someone finally decides they had better have a go at a difficult unbooked target.

[BloodyButcher]

Are we arguing about if Ter BS got fewer incs due to being Ter BS, or that p3ng got fewer incs for being capital hulls?
Demographics for p3nguins -
17 Cat
16 Etd
18 Ter
9 Zik
---

Even by your logic, when p3ng forts was targetted, the incs that the Ter would get in a perfect alliance attack, was given to the ETD/ZIK/CATs instead.

[[B5]Londo]

Wasnt the original argument that in the early phase it was possible that P3n got fewer random incs from FR based allies because they got capital hulls based anti FR considerably before FR allies got their own broadsword defence? So while P3n's CR/BS was at its best the FR allies xans were also (temporarily) vulnerable to FR.
The Argument then diverged because you argued that players dont get that kind of choice of targets... while booji and I believe that players still have plenty of latitude to avoid targets that they dont feel suit them.
So this is not about the targeting of forts at all... precisely the opposite since it was only about the numbers of random incs the alliance got.

[HeimdallR]

Its clear that ODDR had the most incomings, doesn't matter what the stats say.

[NoXiouS]

those who had CRBS early did get less incs early in the round, due to the fact that Hulls 3 is always strong in the start (mostly solo attacks for max cap and XP early etc. and very low on anti-crbs due to ficofrde being the more common ships, especially in def), simple. Closer to the end of the round, P3n planets became quite easy as targets, due to our attack fleets now being a lot better in many ways, I have no idea how bows attack fleets turned out to be (I had 0 interested in them at all during the round). Only problem for FR fleets was PL/ingal broads. We'd most likely had a lot more attack fleets if we weren't in some cripplefight all round again and when 2-3 forts get incs a night and are forced to stay home, ofc we can send a lot less attack fleets (and thx to fleets being home, we could cover with a lot less def fleets).

ULT had awesome strat (especially the LS ziks), very successful politics and superior intel (spies, spies everywhere), so they managed a 75% recall rate with somewhat low incs, which pretty much was the key for their win.

and you can say whatever you want BB, but we at least didn't have any pre-round naps. Yes, we knew we'd most likely be friendly with ND (since MM went back), but other than that, everything was open until around tick 175 or so.

[[B5]Londo]

Originally Posted by NoXiouS

P3n planets became quite easy as targets, due to our attack fleets now being a lot better in many ways

That may be true, but how much of that was actually degradation of the effectiveness of CR/BS as a strategy and how much of that was simply p3n lost politically and as a result its members were outgrown by its opponents with the obvious result that it would take fewer of you to roid any single P3n planet.

[BloodyButcher]

Originally Posted by NoXiouS

and you can say whatever you want BB, but we at least didn't have any pre-round naps. Yes, we knew we'd most likely be friendly with ND (since MM went back), but other than that, everything was open until around tick 175 or so.

Never said you had any preround deals this round, but it seemed like your politics with ND was decided prior to the round start.

[Bane]

Originally Posted by HeimdallR

Its clear that ODDR had the most incomings, doesn't matter what the stats say.

Approved, facts are for robots.