|
|
27 Oct 2013, 21:06
|
#1
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Round 53 incomming stats
http://beta.planetarion.com/history/...?id=6&round=53
Any suprises?
Its quite obvious that Spore had the most incommings on their top planets as the round went on, quite suprising they ended with a top3 ranking at all tbh.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
27 Oct 2013, 22:04
|
#2
|
1Up
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 302
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
|
I got most incoming \o/
__________________
[Fury] Exec
[Eclipse] HC
[1up] HC
[Spore] HC
Former Public Relations Officer of QQ
|
|
|
27 Oct 2013, 23:27
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 77
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Only surprise is that i think CT was better than ppl gave them credit for this round.. Vikings with most incs, no surprise being in war for 90% of the round but ct had alot more incs than i expected to see, so their defence culture cant be laughed about like earlier rounds.. As for Spore you guys were not able to play the "we wont have any naps game" you did for the first weeks and bleed roids.. But cudos for you guys getting #2nd place player.. tortu i believe is a returning player? so thats a very good achivement on his part. All in all a very fun round, im getting abit tired of all the moaning on AD when you have 3 allies able to win going into the last week of the round how come so many complain? Well played to all winners this round! been fun
__________________
Skydivenaked
Recent rounds:
Round 68 - #1 Gal Rank #6 planet
Round 67 - #1 Gal
Round 65 - Rank #3 Norsemen
Round 61 - Rank #37 Faceless
Round 60 - Rank #14 Ultores
Round 58 - Rank #35 Allieless xp play
Round 56 - Rank #14 Vikings
Round 54 - Rank #5 Vikings
|
|
|
27 Oct 2013, 23:36
|
#4
|
Don't make me declare war
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 2,913
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDN
As for Spore you guys were not able to play the "we wont have any naps game" you did for the first weeks and bleed roids..
|
Just to confirm we had no naps for first couple of weeks at all, and has been shown, got a big percentage of incoming compared to bigger alliances whilst being half the size.
There was a couple of weeks where we got next to no incoming when we decided we did have to nap and grew very fat, but then HR hit us and started a war (and of course vikings too).
When you consider we had that time with no incoming you will see how high our incoming was at the start.
|
|
|
28 Oct 2013, 00:04
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Praise must be given, HR defense system changed substantially for the best (couldnt get worst imo) and Spore showed a huge improve in the same aspect.
__________________
mxy
|
|
|
28 Oct 2013, 00:13
|
#6
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
I dont find it wierd that whilst Vikings often had 5 or more alliances hitting them, they didnt have much more incommings than the rest, so cudos to them for achieving the impossibole
If it hadnt been for Vikings backstabbing FAnG and Spore, im not sure if they wouldve finished with most incs this round.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
28 Oct 2013, 05:53
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
While folk are doing the sportsman thing and congratulating allys that they don't particularly like, B-B never seems to surprise me about his bitterness.
And while I feel that certain elements within Spore are just bitter trolls, I will do the sportsman thing and praise Spore for their achievement of putting up one hell of a fight at the end of the round.
Just a little advice, B-B, if you're really so bitter and can't conform with others with any sort of credit where deserved, then I suggest you shouldn't bother posting at all, as I'm sure I'm not the only one fedup of your constant trolling.
Last edited by Clouds; 28 Oct 2013 at 05:58.
|
|
|
28 Oct 2013, 13:01
|
#8
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
While folk are doing the sportsman thing and congratulating allys that they don't particularly like, B-B never seems to surprise me about his bitterness.
And while I feel that certain elements within Spore are just bitter trolls, I will do the sportsman thing and praise Spore for their achievement of putting up one hell of a fight at the end of the round.
Just a little advice, B-B, if you're really so bitter and can't conform with others with any sort of credit where deserved, then I suggest you shouldn't bother posting at all, as I'm sure I'm not the only one fedup of your constant trolling.
|
Im not bitter at all.
Im just suprised how diffrent it can be from ally to ally, im pretty sure Vikings were saying they had a block of multiple alliances against them basicly the whole start of the round, yet the incomming stats show that it mustve been more or less the same for everyone.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
28 Oct 2013, 13:30
|
#9
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Im not bitter at all.
Im just suprised how diffrent it can be from ally to ally, im pretty sure Vikings were saying they had a block of multiple alliances against them basicly the whole start of the round, yet the incomming stats show that it mustve been more or less the same for everyone.
|
Actually from what intel i saw i would say that Vikings incommings were probably concentrated to the planned attacks on them and retals. It seemed that even their 50th ranked planets had decent size and score which would deter them from getting random raided.
Something that cant be said for other alliances from the intel i saw. That would probably count for 100-150 incs a round, i would imagine the likes of Spore and xVx had their gals hit on day raids too because they were deemed easier targets. Again its more incs that are uncoordinated and oppurtunistic probably around another 100-150.
When i was in Ultores this was the case that all the incommings would arrive over 3-4 ticks and then a few sporadic retals if we were attacking and then it would be dead all day on the def page. I would imagine FaNG and Viking sexperience the same thing as ppl are reluctant to hit them out of raids because of the pre conception that it will be covered.
I think the biggest shock is how little incommings ND recieved and they still didnt win.... shocking!
|
|
|
28 Oct 2013, 15:18
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Im not bitter at all.
Im just suprised how diffrent it can be from ally to ally, im pretty sure Vikings were saying they had a block of multiple alliances against them basicly the whole start of the round, yet the incomming stats show that it mustve been more or less the same for everyone.
|
We were blocked for a period of 10 days, and then a second period of around 5 days, though overtime fleets launched from said block deteriorated. Maybe from lack of motivation.
|
|
|
28 Oct 2013, 16:15
|
#11
|
Retard0r
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,164
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba
i would imagine the likes of Spore and xVx had their gals hit on day raids too because they were deemed easier targets.
|
We were p-targetted for a total of 8 nights, by certain t3 alliances, little/no incs during days.
That being said, we were easy targets, so i guess some alliances saw that as a perfect bashing move to secure planetranks etc. Now we didnt kick our c200/inactive squad(who were there for the majority of the round), so i would divide xVx incs on 5 fewer planets.
__________________
-Chimpie
* We do not exist *
* G-II * NoS * VsN * Ascendancy * Osiris * xVx * Ultores *
|
|
|
28 Oct 2013, 17:01
|
#12
|
Fightin-irish for life
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: guinness brewery
Posts: 2,177
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Guess all those avoidance agreements worked out well as the top 3 allys had same ratio of incs per planet as Fi
__________________
Ascendancy, now with added Irish
"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it."
-Rommel
|
|
|
28 Oct 2013, 17:15
|
#13
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by gzambo
Guess all those avoidance agreements worked out well as the top 3 allys had same ratio of incs per planet as Fi
|
Alliances like F-I or xVx, which are or very small or considered to not defend well will always suffer from that unless they insert themselves inside a block: In the "galraiding" stage of the round their planets waves are always fully picked and in the "blocking" stage of the round, they leak roids to the alliances napped with the whole universe and to everyone else during CF's.
__________________
mxy
|
|
|
28 Oct 2013, 17:52
|
#14
|
Idle Git
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Here's a slightly more informative version of those stats:
- Vikings 50.2 6,201,727
- FAnG 47.9 5,143,613
- Spore 46.8 4,901,565
- Apprime 46.4 5,592,811
- Conspiracy 45.7 6,609,882
- FIGHTIN-IRISH 45.2 3,798,691
- Howling Rain 37.5 4,752,473
- Innuendo 35.2 4,176,925
- ROCK 33.9 3,856,978
- xVx 33.9 3,880,217
- NewDawn 33.1 5,198,116
This is total incomming per member (real and fake as fake makes no difference in this regard) sorted descending alongside average score (extrapolated from the total alliance score divided by member count). Obviously, it doesn't factor in alliances having members leave/join, but I think the trend it shows is the most accurate picture.
I have to say, the surprises for me here are:
1. Fang being so high - I thought their incs were confined to one short period, so either I was mistaken or they get truly hammered during that period. Either way, their round is looking more impressive as a result.
2. NewDawn having so few. Someone mentioned earlier that they were surprised ND had "done so badly whilst having so little incs". I have a different perspective on this. I think ND had too many NAPs and, whilst they were not being attacked, they were unable to grow due to having no decent targets available. I think this is the perfect example of why alliances need to find a balance between attack and defence and grounding fleets when you know you have incomming is not necessarily the best action.
3. The similarities between alliances. There is essentially 2 groups, those around 35/round and those around 45/round. When you look at these alliances and their relative scores, it actually suggests to me that war is profitable in PA; the general trend is those that had more incomming (and therefore were at war and had fewer agreements and therefore more targets) have the higher average score. it is remarkable though just how similar the two groups of alliances are.
I know that my conclusions above are over-simplified, however I do think there is a strong argument there that a fear of war (which seems to run through a lot of players) is actually unfounded - the opportunities it provides exceed the negatives.
__________________
Here we go again....
|
|
|
28 Oct 2013, 19:41
|
#15
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
That depends on what you mean by "war". Taking 3 other alliances to gang up on someone? Sure, that pays off. Taking your top alliance and targetting some 35 man newbie alliance? Excellent, free roids for everyone! Having a one on one fight with an alliance of roughly equal strength? Hahahano.
Note that I'm not saying PA wars should all be like perfectly balanced chess games. Far from it. However, I do believe that the current climate of politics is (at best!) extremely tedious, free of any thought of creativity or unorthodoxy.
It's been this way ever since the most influential people in the community started caring more about their galaxies than their alliances.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
28 Oct 2013, 20:15
|
#16
|
Idle Git
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wandering
Posts: 1,550
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
It's been this way ever since the most influential people in the community started caring more about their galaxies than their alliances.
|
So sad and so true.
__________________
Here we go again....
|
|
|
28 Oct 2013, 22:58
|
#17
|
!!!AMERICA!!!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 793
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba
Actually from what intel i saw i would say that Vikings incommings were probably concentrated to the planned attacks on them and retals. It seemed that even their 50th ranked planets had decent size and score which would deter them from getting random raided.
Something that cant be said for other alliances from the intel i saw. That would probably count for 100-150 incs a round, i would imagine the likes of Spore and xVx had their gals hit on day raids too because they were deemed easier targets. Again its more incs that are uncoordinated and oppurtunistic probably around another 100-150.
When i was in Ultores this was the case that all the incommings would arrive over 3-4 ticks and then a few sporadic retals if we were attacking and then it would be dead all day on the def page. I would imagine FaNG and Viking sexperience the same thing as ppl are reluctant to hit them out of raids because of the pre conception that it will be covered.
I think the biggest shock is how little incommings ND recieved and they still didnt win.... shocking!
|
you have to have roids to get incs our incs were focused more on the beginning part of the roudn from what I saw then we had to play catch up we were pretty low on ally roids the whole round. But thats just my observation from KIA
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 08:27
|
#18
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 601
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Think the size of galaxies probably impacted incomings quite a lot too. CT & Spore tended to have a lot of planets per galaxy whereas some of the other alliances were more spread out.
So early round when it was galaxy roiding, they'll have got a disproportionate amount of incs as allys had to take just about one gal a night more often than not.
__________________
[DLR] [Conspiracy Theory] [1up] [Faceless] [Elysium] [LCH] [NewDawn] [Apprime]
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 08:37
|
#19
|
Don't make me declare war
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 2,913
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
spore had little planets per gal, that was a problem
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 12:44
|
#20
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest
spore had little planets per gal, that was a problem
|
They were only little cos they were so easy to roid
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 13:01
|
#21
|
Don't make me declare war
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 2,913
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
i mean little as in few planets, we were well spread
and i think hr/vikings found as not so easy
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 13:24
|
#22
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest
and i think hr/vikings found as not so easy
|
The only Spores we found difficult to roid were the 4:1 dudes. So that's 3.
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 13:25
|
#23
|
Don't make me declare war
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 2,913
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
sure
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 13:34
|
#24
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Who DCed for Spore?
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 13:44
|
#25
|
Don't make me declare war
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 2,913
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
A few people
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 13:49
|
#26
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Tbh Spore lost 7% of their roids on 5-6 occasions it seems. I think these are around when firstly HR and then Vikings hit them.
From looking at Vikings even though they had a 4 man teamup on them for 1/3rd of the round and were constantly at war they only went above -2.5% once excluding the shannigans of the final day. Then we look at HR and they only went over -5% once all round (they had a -4.3% as well).
Now i know HR only warred Apprime for a short period so they werent in constant conflict but Vikings were. We have established that Vikings were at war for most the round and yet it was Spore that shipped lots of roids. Before you comment about you being a 40 man alliance to Vikings 60 please bear in mind that 200+ planet were at war with Vikings at one point, only 60 max were ever at war with you.
So i conclude that Spores general defence was awful, that they spent all their time flagshipping one gal and ultimately were a great target for roiding
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 13:59
|
#27
|
Don't make me declare war
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 2,913
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
well the last 3 days we lost 7% yes, but, we didnt just have vikings after us.
we had over 100 fleets on each of those evenings. we were 33 members then, 8 inactives, so 25 active planets 100+ fleets. and we knew we would lose roids in some places because we made the decision to defend against vikings so they wouldnt get good xp.
and it worked.
no-one is claiming spore to be the best defenders last round or anything like that, but we had a job to do and we stuck to that job.
and i think you will find that vikings hc have even said publically on these very forums that we did a good job at our chosen places, so i dunno why you feel you need to even comment
we bring back a load of new players, we dont have to defend ourselves to the likes of you. infact, we dont have to defend ourselves to anyone on these forums, ppl know where to find us.
i wont reply on this thread again
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 14:02
|
#28
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest
and we knew we would lose roids in some places because we made the decision to defend against vikings so they wouldnt get good xp.
and it worked.
|
I have to disagree here. You only seemed to sent defence to your 4:1 guys, everyone else were practically free roids. Maybe if you had spread your defence out a little, we wouldn't have landed so much on you. But I understand you wanted to achieve top planet.
Last edited by Clouds; 29 Oct 2013 at 14:14.
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 14:13
|
#29
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Then why do you only talk about Vikings going after you. After saying that you dont care about Vikings or that there wasnt a vendetta you havent mentioned any other alliance that attacked you on purpose in this period. Can you please explain what actually happened and give all sides involved instead of just flaming Vikings permantly. I know you can never resist reply on these forums its why we pick on you and bitcher, to watch you squirm, defend and justify yourselves. Its how we get our kicks, KEEP POSTING
Ps. If you dont have to keep defending yourselves to the likes of me then why do you keep doing it. Dont play the 'we bring new ppl to the game' card either to cut yourself some slack cause you have been backed into a corner. Looking forward to troll waving every Spore planet next round. These new players wont want to play in Spore anymore afterwards.
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 14:47
|
#30
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba
Now i know HR only warred Apprime for a short period so they werent in constant conflict but Vikings were. We have established that Vikings were at war for most the round and yet it was Spore that shipped lots of roids. Before you comment about you being a 40 man alliance to Vikings 60 please bear in mind that 200+ planet were at war with Vikings at one point, only 60 max were ever at war with you.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
We were blocked for a period of 10 days, and then a second period of around 5 days, though overtime fleets launched from said block deteriorated. Maybe from lack of motivation.
|
Its these statements that just dosnt add up with the incomming stats.
If Vikings were blocked against for 300 ticks of the round, with up to 200 planets at war with them, how come the incomming stats does not show any significant difference in total incommings on the top alliances + Spore?
Id expect that a normal night of incs would be like 150 incomming fleets each night, that totals up to around 2,2k fleets in total, say 2000 to be fair, that would leave 700~ incs on the remaining 800 ticks or what not?
You only had 10 hostile fleets each night for 75% of the round?
This is not a discussion on how good/bad anyones defence is, its just me trying to understand what realy went on this round.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 15:02
|
#31
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
And this is actualy the round with the least incommings on the most targetted alliance, marginaly beating R51 when TGV was unfairly blocked against.
Im pretty sure FAnG r46 or Ultores r49 would tell you what is normal incommings on alliances that gets "blocked" on.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 15:02
|
#32
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
The only real proper hostiles that Vikings encountered were the two periods that we were blocked. Other periods were our war with FAnG, which was a fair 1v1 and FAnG/Spore incs towards the end of the round.
I'm not basing our competency on how much inc we got, it's mainly based on how the memberbase pulled together in times of heavy hostilities, and how we used tactical maneuvers in our war VS FAnG. (Operation Gremlin Soda)
From a personal point of view, the block war VS us improved our endurance and stamnia; it made our core stronger due to pulling us together to counter these hostilites. I would say the same happened with Spore, as they appeared to have worked together to try and counter our fleets.
War can either make or break an alliance.
Last edited by Clouds; 30 Oct 2013 at 14:29.
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 15:14
|
#33
|
Don't make me declare war
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 2,913
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
From a personal point of view, the block war VS us improved our endurance and stamnia; it made our core stronger due to pulling us together to counter these hostilites. I would say the same happened with Spore, as they appeared to work together to try and counter our fleets.
War can either make or break an alliance.
|
Absolutely correct.
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 16:06
|
#34
|
Ensign
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 21
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
j0 palz?
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 18:21
|
#35
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
The end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh the end is nigh
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 19:01
|
#36
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Its these statements that just dosnt add up with the incomming stats.
If Vikings were blocked against for 300 ticks of the round, with up to 200 planets at war with them, how come the incomming stats does not show any significant difference in total incommings on the top alliances + Spore?
Id expect that a normal night of incs would be like 150 incomming fleets each night, that totals up to around 2,2k fleets in total, say 2000 to be fair, that would leave 700~ incs on the remaining 800 ticks or what not?
You only had 10 hostile fleets each night for 75% of the round?
This is not a discussion on how good/bad anyones defence is, its just me trying to understand what realy went on this round.
|
I think you have made a few errors in your thinking too. First week Vikings would have received little incs. As intel comes in people will go for easier roids ie. spore than Vikings, who will defend. I would imagine by tick 200 Vikings wouldn't have had over 100 incs total. Then you have 300 ticks of grounded blocking, now yes it was 200 vs 60 but I doubt all 200 sent every night, more than likely it was 100-120 incs a night on average. 3 of the 4 alliances that hit Vikings aren't considered ACTIVE. That period would probably account for another 1200 incs total. Now the mistake you make is thinking war is one sided. Although Vikings were at war it goes both ways, I'm sure they were on the offensive for a period of the war and incs would have dropped dramatically as their enemies had to defend. Then you have another period of light incs (40 a night is average) then 5 more days of sustained incs (another 100 a night) and then we are near 2000 with 700 more to find in 2.5 weeks of play, which again averages out at 40 a night. Bear in mind also that Vikings and Apprime have a higher general activity and Vikings were predominantly Xan so they could put ALOT more fleet on the offensive to the likes of Spore and CT and FaNG. This would account for those alliances having raised incomming levels compared to Vikings.
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 22:03
|
#37
|
Finally retired
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba
I think you have made a few errors in your thinking too. First week Vikings would have received little incs. As intel comes in people will go for easier roids ie. spore than Vikings, who will defend. I would imagine by tick 200 Vikings wouldn't have had over 100 incs total. Then you have 300 ticks of grounded blocking, now yes it was 200 vs 60 but I doubt all 200 sent every night, more than likely it was 100-120 incs a night on average. 3 of the 4 alliances that hit Vikings aren't considered ACTIVE. That period would probably account for another 1200 incs total. Now the mistake you make is thinking war is one sided. Although Vikings were at war it goes both ways, I'm sure they were on the offensive for a period of the war and incs would have dropped dramatically as their enemies had to defend. Then you have another period of light incs (40 a night is average) then 5 more days of sustained incs (another 100 a night) and then we are near 2000 with 700 more to find in 2.5 weeks of play, which again averages out at 40 a night. Bear in mind also that Vikings and Apprime have a higher general activity and Vikings were predominantly Xan so they could put ALOT more fleet on the offensive to the likes of Spore and CT and FaNG. This would account for those alliances having raised incomming levels compared to Vikings.
|
Upto PT350 - a total of 400 fleets (100 from CT, 100 from ND, 60 from FAnG, 60 from spore, 40 from HR, 40 random)
Upto PT450 - a total of 700 fleets (200 from CT, 120 from ND, 100 from Spore, 100 from fang, 50 from HR, 30 from Rock, 50 from Innuendo, 50 random)
Then 1 night of 250 fleets (CT/ND/Spore/Apprime/Innuendo/Rock) where we lost 5.5% of our roids.
Then 2 nights of 100-150 fleets (CT/ND/Spore).
Then 2 nights of nothing (ceasefire in effect)
Then 3 nights of 100-150 fleets (CT/ND/Spore)
Then 2 nights of nothing (ceasefire in effect)
Then a week of 50 fleets a night (FAnG)
Then 4 nights of 80 fleets (FAnG/ND)
Then 2 nights of nothing
Then 4 nights of 20 fleets (FAnG)
Then 6 nights of 50 fleets (FAnG/Spore)
I think that's about it
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]
In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 22:27
|
#38
|
Finally retired
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bashar
I have to say, the surprises for me here are:
1. Fang being so high - I thought their incs were confined to one short period, so either I was mistaken or they get truly hammered during that period. Either way, their round is looking more impressive as a result.
2. NewDawn having so few. Someone mentioned earlier that they were surprised ND had "done so badly whilst having so little incs". I have a different perspective on this. I think ND had too many NAPs and, whilst they were not being attacked, they were unable to grow due to having no decent targets available. I think this is the perfect example of why alliances need to find a balance between attack and defence and grounding fleets when you know you have incomming is not necessarily the best action.
3. The similarities between alliances. There is essentially 2 groups, those around 35/round and those around 45/round. When you look at these alliances and their relative scores, it actually suggests to me that war is profitable in PA; the general trend is those that had more incomming (and therefore were at war and had fewer agreements and therefore more targets) have the higher average score. it is remarkable though just how similar the two groups of alliances are.
I know that my conclusions above are over-simplified, however I do think there is a strong argument there that a fear of war (which seems to run through a lot of players) is actually unfounded - the opportunities it provides exceed the negatives.
|
1. In that short period of time, just Vikings alone put 120+ fleet a night on FAnG. And afaik CT's attack activity at that time was very similar to ours. Add Apprime and ROCK into the mix and you will see that in those 3 days they got ~1000 fleets on them. Add to that the 10 nights Vikings ptargetted FAnG on their own with ~50 fleets a night and they are allready up to 1500 fleets. That only leaves 1200 other fleets throughout the round, keeping in mind CT, HR and Apprime all targetted them in the first half of the round at one time or another and it is clear that they have had very little random incs (probably less than the 700 fleets Vikings had incoming prior to pt450).
2. I think ND's problem this round was more to the fact that their incs were fairly concentrated, and that they lacked offensive power to gain roids in their easy periods. For instance, ND hit 4:3 a couple of times early round, and apart from the first time they got very little roids from it.
3. You'll quickly see that the alliances that had more incs also tend to be the ones who have/hold more roids. This generally means you have to put bigger waves on them to get their roids. And during the galraiding days the number of waves tend to be limited.
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]
In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 22:30
|
#39
|
Finally retired
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
And this is actualy the round with the least incommings on the most targetted alliance, marginaly beating R51 when TGV was unfairly blocked against.
Im pretty sure FAnG r46 or Ultores r49 would tell you what is normal incommings on alliances that gets "blocked" on.
|
Please keep in mind that TGV kicked 10 of their members in the closing stages of r51. Most of them being fairly high profile members that all had around 100 fleets of inc on them throughout the round. But, yes, the distribution of fleets seems to have been fairly similar among the top allies this round. Unfortunately just the number of fleets tells very little, the time an alliance gets the incomings weighs down a lot more.
For instance, this round CT had a lot of incs in the early stages of the round, early incomings are annoying as hell, but they tend not to kill off the growth of an alliance too much at the end of the round. Vikings had a lot of it's incs in the middle part of the round which completely killed their growth for a good 400 ticks, leading them to have a 10k roiddeficit in the closing stages of the round when the biggest differences can be made. And FAnG had most their incs in the latest stages of the round causing them to loose a lot of their roids, but not a whole lot of value (the value they lost was because of crashes mostly)
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]
In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
Last edited by Influence; 29 Oct 2013 at 22:38.
|
|
|
29 Oct 2013, 22:49
|
#40
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 898
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Here are our stats for the round:
Incoming
1 - Vikings - 496
2 - Innuendo - 483
3 - Apprime - 439
4 - Howling Rain - 424
5 - FAnG - 294
6 - xVx - 228
7 - ROCK - 174
8 - NewDawn - 153
9 - <Unknown> - 151
10 - Spore - 50
Outgoing
1 - Innuendo - 453
2 - Apprime - 433
3 - Vikings - 386
4 - FAnG - 287
5 - xVx - 166
6 - Howling Rain - 157
7 - <Unknown> - 123
8 - NewDawn - 119
9 - ROCK - 105
10 - FIGHTIN-IRISH - 68
__________________
R4-5 DDK
R6 Vanx
R7-R10 FAnG
R10 Eclipse
R10.5-R13 FAnG
R20-23 CT
R23 (CT BG) ToF
R24-R82... CT
|
|
|
30 Oct 2013, 14:10
|
#41
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
Please keep in mind that TGV kicked 10 of their members in the closing stages of r51. Most of them being fairly high profile members that all had around 100 fleets of inc on them throughout the round. But, yes, the distribution of fleets seems to have been fairly similar among the top allies this round. Unfortunately just the number of fleets tells very little, the time an alliance gets the incomings weighs down a lot more.
For instance, this round CT had a lot of incs in the early stages of the round, early incomings are annoying as hell, but they tend not to kill off the growth of an alliance too much at the end of the round. Vikings had a lot of it's incs in the middle part of the round which completely killed their growth for a good 400 ticks, leading them to have a 10k roiddeficit in the closing stages of the round when the biggest differences can be made. And FAnG had most their incs in the latest stages of the round causing them to loose a lot of their roids, but not a whole lot of value (the value they lost was because of crashes mostly)
|
I think every experinced alliance HC would say getting a lot incs early on is much worse than getting 5 days with between 100-150 incs each day mid round when you got a pretty decent value/roid lead over the other alliances attacking.
I think you are being pretty honest and open when you say that you did not have more than 6 days with normal/high incs the whole round, its in a big contrast to what Kaiba has been claiming, and i think this approach you present now is what could bring Vikings further in the hunt for a win.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
30 Oct 2013, 16:28
|
#42
|
Finally retired
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
I think every experinced alliance HC would say getting a lot incs early on is much worse than getting 5 days with between 100-150 incs each day mid round when you got a pretty decent value/roid lead over the other alliances attacking.
I think you are being pretty honest and open when you say that you did not have more than 6 days with normal/high incs the whole round, its in a big contrast to what Kaiba has been claiming, and i think this approach you present now is what could bring Vikings further in the hunt for a win.
|
hmm i wouldn't class 100-150 fleets as 'normal' incs. And if you look closely it's actually another 8 days of 80-100 fleets. I completely disagree with your
statement about the timing of incs. And i think the results this round shows exactly why. Roids you lose early on are generally easy to replace(i can know, i was 3rd most roided by pt450), politics tend to get easier when you are lower on roids and rank.
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]
In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
|
|
|
30 Oct 2013, 17:05
|
#43
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
hmm i wouldn't class 100-150 fleets as 'normal' incs. And if you look closely it's actually another 8 days of 80-100 fleets. I completely disagree with your
statement about the timing of incs. And i think the results this round shows exactly why. Roids you lose early on are generally easy to replace(i can know, i was 3rd most roided by pt450), politics tend to get easier when you are lower on roids and rank.
|
The last few alliances ive been have had around 1-2 times the member count in incs, not always when we were #1 in avg size, not necesarly at war with anyone either.
If you look at R45-R50 you would prolly see that the daily average incs for a top alliance will be more or less +80 fleets if im not wrong.
So id say anything below anything below average 1 fleet per planet each day in your allie when you got a decent size would be very unusual.
I dont understand where you are comming from that a lot of incs early on is good, most top allies these days play a more or less hard value game.
Running a alliance will be far easier when you get early value, and can defend easily, building momentum and having members that feel they can still do a very good round.
Normaly if you are bashed bellow top300 the first 300-500 ticks you would prolly not be as dedicated and motivated.
Ofc there has been allies that has been able to come back from a very bad start in this game, but the number of those i can think of is very small.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
30 Oct 2013, 18:42
|
#44
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
60*49=2960
Every alliance is below this, nd by over 1000 incs, hr by 800, ct and fang by 300.
I have been in a 'top alliance' most rounds since rd 45 and I don't think I have seen a regular 60 incs a day ever. A closer figure would be 30-40 maybe 50 if a fort is hit.
|
|
|
30 Oct 2013, 19:36
|
#45
|
Don't make me declare war
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 2,913
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
sorry is that 60 members x 49 days?
|
|
|
30 Oct 2013, 19:39
|
#46
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba
60*49=2960
Every alliance is below this, nd by over 1000 incs, hr by 800, ct and fang by 300.
I have been in a 'top alliance' most rounds since rd 45 and I don't think I have seen a regular 60 incs a day ever. A closer figure would be 30-40 maybe 50 if a fort is hit.
|
Just to take a few examples
Ultores R45: 108 incs each day
FAnG R46: 114 incs each day
Ultores R47: 100 incs each day
Apprime R48: 78 incs each day
Ultores R49: 91 incs each day
FAnG R50: 78 incs each day
Ultores R52: 80 incs each day
This does not matter to you ofc, cus looking at your resyme in your siggie you have never realy been in a alliance getting hit hard, so you would not understand.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
30 Oct 2013, 20:54
|
#47
|
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 622
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Just to take a few examples
Ultores R45: 108 incs each day
FAnG R46: 114 incs each day
Ultores R47: 100 incs each day
Apprime R48: 78 incs each day
Ultores R49: 91 incs each day
FAnG R50: 78 incs each day
Ultores R52: 80 incs each day
This does not matter to you ofc, cus looking at your resyme in your siggie you have never realy been in a alliance getting hit hard, so you would not understand.
|
Calc Omen Ascendancy r30 Apprime round 40
__________________
If you can't amaze people with your intelligence, confuse them with your bullshit.
BANANA ALLIANCE!!
|
|
|
30 Oct 2013, 21:14
|
#48
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Just to take a few examples
Ultores R45: 108 incs each day
FAnG R46: 114 incs each day
Ultores R47: 100 incs each day
Apprime R48: 78 incs each day
Ultores R49: 91 incs each day
FAnG R50: 78 incs each day
Ultores R52: 80 incs each day
This does not matter to you ofc, cus looking at your resyme in your siggie you have never realy been in a alliance getting hit hard, so you would not understand.
|
Maybe I was just in alliances that played politics better to get less incommings. Or you are in alliances that get lots because you act like a tard on here with your 'pal' Forest, who knows...
|
|
|
30 Oct 2013, 21:18
|
#49
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunterrrr
Calc Omen Ascendancy r30 Apprime round 40
|
Lets stay in this millenium
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
30 Oct 2013, 23:05
|
#50
|
Finally retired
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: Round 53 incomming stats
Ultores R45: 108 incs each day (8 alliances with more than 40 members, 510 members in them)
FAnG R46: 114 incs each day (9 alliances with more than 40 members, 521 members in them)
Ultores R47: 100 incs each day (8 alliances with more than 40 members, 497 members in them)
Apprime R48: 78 incs each day (11 alliances with more than 30 members, 647 members in them
Ultores R49: 91 incs each day (11 alliances with more than 30 members, 580 members in them)
FAnG R50: 78 incs each day (11 alliances with more than 30 members, 584 members in them)
TGV R51: 85 incs each day (11 alliances with more than 30 members, 510 members in them)
Ultores R52: 80 incs each day (10 alliances with more than 30 members, 507 members in them)
Vikings R53: 56 incs each day (9 alliances with more than 30 members, 453 members in them)
(TGV r51 stats include the 10 members that were kicked on the last day, i added their inc stats manually)
So yes, Vikings had less incs each day than the others, but that was with 2 less active alliances and 50 less active players. Both of which drastically lower the amount of incs imho. Unfortunately, the difference is so big there is no real comparison. I think all this shows is how poor FAnGs inc were in r50 (and Apprimes inc in r48) compared to TGV in r51 and Ultores in r52.
Why does the number of active alliances matter? Well, the lower the number of alliances are actively playing, the easier it becomes to control your incs(fewer alliances gives a higher probability to have agreements with more of your possible incs), the less likely alliances are to gang up on you(gangups work on the premise of outnumbering your enemy, with fewer alliances available gangups are smaller), and the less random incs you are gonna get in the first weeks (alliances tend to stick to a maximum of 2 galaxies on their raids, this limits the number of members getting incs due to galraids)
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]
In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
Last edited by Influence; 30 Oct 2013 at 23:14.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:48.
| |