|
|
25 Sep 2015, 21:35
|
#1
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Inc stats discussion pos R63
BowS:
Total incommings: 2695
Total defence fleets sent: 2660
p3nguins(56/59): Hostile 1143 - Friendly 46
NewDawn(44/44): Hostile 747 - Friendly 16
Faceless(60/60): Hostile 170 - Friendly 30
Conspiracy(60/60): Hostile 155 - Friendly 89
No intel(166): Hostile 108 - Friendly 63
Black-Flag(55/60): Hostile 103 - friendly 62
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
Last edited by BloodyButcher; 25 Sep 2015 at 21:41.
|
|
|
25 Sep 2015, 23:17
|
#2
|
Dictator
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 634
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Wouldn't be surprised to see p3ng top hostiles for a few alliances again. Probably add BF and FL to the list.
|
|
|
29 Sep 2015, 09:04
|
#3
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
BF Average 49 inc each member - 62% inc recall - Attack average 44 - Defence Average 30
P3ng Average 49 inc each member - 52% inc recall - Attack average 42 - Defence Average 36
FL Average 70 inc each member - 53% inc recall - Attack average 38 - Defence Average 45
CT Average 58 inc each member - 43% inc recall - Attack average 48 - Defence Average 40
BowS Average 58 inc each member - 58% inc recall - Attack average 43 - Defence Average 53
Ult Average 56 inc each member - 43% inc recall - Attack average 42 - Defence Average 28
HR Average 34 inc each member - 46% inc recall - Attack average 34 - Defence Average 34
ND Average 39 inc each member - 43% inc recall - Attack average 37 - Defence Average 32
Norse Average 27 inc each member - 42% inc recall - Attack average 43 - Defence Average 24
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
29 Sep 2015, 16:01
|
#4
|
Knightly Protector
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Avalon
Posts: 590
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Link to the incoming stats for the ones that dont know, Quite interesting.
http://beta.planetarion.com/history/...?id=6&round=63
__________________
TGV Ex-HC
-No I am not suffering from insanity. I am enjoying every minute of it.
Est Sularus oth Mithas
My Honour is My Life, My Life is My Honour
|
|
|
29 Sep 2015, 16:32
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexDrax
|
FL Block (FL+ULT): 6921 incs
BF Block (BF+CT+P3NG): 9291 incs
Conclusion, FL not only did fence the entire round but manage to lost it.
__________________
mxy
|
|
|
29 Sep 2015, 16:36
|
#6
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran
FL Block (FL+ULT): 6921 incs
BF Block (BF+CT+P3NG): 9291 incs
Conclusion, FL not only did fence the entire round but manage to lost it.
|
Too be fair to FL, it never existed a "FL block" more or less.
And if they had fenced the whole round, they wouldnt have 1300 more incs than the rest of the top3
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
29 Sep 2015, 17:09
|
#7
|
Internal Error
Join Date: May 2002
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 696
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran
FL Block (FL+ULT): 6921 incs
BF Block (BF+CT+P3NG): 9291 incs
Conclusion, FL not only did fence the entire round but manage to lost it.
|
Ultores was busy with CT the majority of the round. You cant call FL/Ult a block.
__________________
Nitros
[]LCH[] ..lets change history
|
|
|
29 Sep 2015, 17:11
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitros
Ultores was busy with CT the majority of the round. You cant call FL/Ult a block.
|
Ok, let's revise then
FL Block (FL): 4205 incs
BF Block (BF+CT+P3NG): 9291 incs
So much incompetence on FL side. BF is sure a defense potence nowadays.
Quote:
And if they had fenced the whole round, they wouldnt have 1300 more incs than the rest of the top3
|
Statistics is saying differently
__________________
mxy
|
|
|
29 Sep 2015, 17:30
|
#9
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran
Statistics is saying differently
|
BF simply were better with their politics.
Faceless was stupid to put their faith in p3ng to back them up, a alliance well known for only thinking what is best for them in any situation and well known for only targetting alliances below themself if impossibole
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
29 Sep 2015, 18:18
|
#10
|
Sain†s
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
It wasn't simply politics. FL and p3ng both wanted to hit us towards the end of the round, and no political situation prevented it. Value lead and defensive organisation did - nobody wanted to hit us alone, so nobody made the first move.
__________________
☠ | ROCK | BowS | Sain†s
|
|
|
29 Sep 2015, 18:34
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 77
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Why the reason for trolling mxy?
BF won cause the political situation this round was pretty chilled..
Having a troll ultores tag makes for a boring round.
p3ng always plays for individual planetranks, never alliewin.
Faceless usually does the same, gal and planets but with full tag this round and a competent playerbase they had to compete for #1
All in all, good dcing and politics made BF win again!
Also FL much like Ultores when they play serious are not the people`s pick. Generally disliken to say the least
__________________
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
|
|
|
29 Sep 2015, 18:54
|
#12
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDN
Why the reason for trolling mxy?
|
No reason. Maybe a little due to the talk about BF being the god of defense. But yeah round was decided in the political sphere. And IMHO, 4205 incs showed the other block slacked a little in attack aswell. I think the sum stagnation and stats were the main cause of that.
__________________
mxy
|
|
|
29 Sep 2015, 18:56
|
#13
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 245
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
The following is based on data about fleet launches provided by the PA team.
The first part is using the same method as the PA team used to create the alliance stats;
The numbers however are not an exact match but at the moment there is no real incentive to drill down to it to find the differences..
The second part is using a slightly different method to calculate the numbers;
To calculate the number of incs for an alliance the stats in PA count the incs of the player that are in that alliance at end of round..
This can (and is) different then the actual incs that these planets received while in tag in the alliance.
In the second part the alliance that the planets were in at launch tick is used
It also only counts the incomings that landed before or on PT 1153 (the PA stats appear to also included fleet launches before PT 1153 and landing after PT 1153).
In both cases: - the rows represent the number of incs an alliance received
- the columns represent the number of hostile fleets an alliance launched
i.e.: - BF received 693 hostile fleets from p3n;
- BF send 485 hostile fleets to p3n;
First part
Code:
| BF | p3n | Face | CT | RB | Ult | HR | ND | Norse | HODOR | Terra | ASC | COBRA | GBP | Other | Total |
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
| BF | 4 | 693 | 624 | 47 | 84 | 342 | 124 | 149 | 303 | 250 | 64 | 45 | 36 | | 150 | 2915 |
| p3n | 485 | 36 | 358 | 68 | 894 | 29 | 276 | 171 | 164 | 46 | 77 | 47 | 110 | 14 | 113 | 2888 |
| Face | 1141 | 270 | 8 | 816 | 159 | 37 | 228 | 595 | 198 | 271 | 50 | 110 | 92 | | 208 | 4183 |
| CT | 98 | 64 | 524 | 1 | 91 | 1788 | 205 | 8 | 237 | 96 | 136 | 38 | 48 | 1 | 135 | 3470 |
| RB | 137 | 1160 | 165 | 136 | 6 | 8 | 84 | 738 | 39 | 105 | 20 | 46 | 12 | 6 | 101 | 2763 |
| Ult | 475 | 48 | 82 | 1825 | 14 | 2 | 27 | 43 | 34 | 34 | 39 | 23 | 29 | 1 | 50 | 2726 |
| HR | 280 | 284 | 195 | 221 | 60 | 25 | 25 | 33 | 1 | 18 | 141 | 27 | 34 | 11 | 34 | 1389 |
| ND | 160 | 110 | 436 | 9 | 522 | 34 | 31 | 4 | 5 | 39 | 115 | 41 | 48 | 6 | 85 | 1645 |
| Norse | 55 | 53 | 51 | 215 | 29 | 13 | 7 | 9 | | 159 | 33 | 17 | 2 | 2 | 23 | 668 |
| HODOR | 113 | 68 | 91 | 42 | 71 | 12 | 26 | 41 | 114 | | 18 | 3 | 35 | 11 | 26 | 671 |
| Terra | 96 | 51 | 177 | 100 | 49 | 5 | 121 | 99 | 33 | 16 | | 16 | 18 | 1 | 26 | 808 |
| ASC | 29 | 80 | 157 | 53 | 70 | 11 | 24 | 18 | 12 | 4 | 23 | | 30 | 4 | 24 | 539 |
| COBRA | 74 | 56 | 25 | 20 | 13 | 13 | 18 | 10 | 5 | 32 | 55 | 9 | 2 | | 12 | 344 |
| GBP | 3 | 14 | 6 | 5 | 29 | 3 | 11 | 10 | | 5 | 1 | 2 | | | 11 | 100 |
| Other | 166 | 217 | 240 | 239 | 258 | 213 | 318 | 208 | 72 | 39 | 123 | 51 | 47 | 30 | 282 | 2503 |
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
| Total | 3316 | 3204 | 3139 | 3797 | 2349 | 2535 | 1525 | 2136 | 1217 | 1114 | 895 | 475 | 543 | 87 | 1280 | 27612 |
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
Second part
Full round:
Code:
| BF | p3n | Face | CT | RB | Ult | HR | ND | Norse | HODOR | Terra | ASC | COBRA | GBP | Other | Total |
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
| BF | | 690 | 593 | 31 | 47 | 326 | 111 | 121 | 290 | 236 | 63 | 82 | 26 | | 121 | 2737 |
| p3n | 461 | | 336 | | 857 | 30 | 247 | 158 | 147 | 59 | 74 | 77 | 106 | 19 | 67 | 2638 |
| Face | 1118 | 258 | | 761 | 147 | 38 | 236 | 614 | 199 | 268 | 50 | 197 | 91 | 8 | 167 | 4152 |
| CT | 80 | | 488 | | 95 | 1964 | 221 | 8 | 236 | 98 | 130 | 41 | 49 | 33 | 100 | 3543 |
| RB | 104 | 1154 | 163 | 128 | | 2 | 80 | 728 | 19 | 82 | 18 | 65 | 6 | 37 | 90 | 2676 |
| Ult | 511 | 48 | 92 | 2009 | 2 | | 39 | 46 | 32 | 42 | 40 | 33 | 31 | 10 | 63 | 2998 |
| HR | 268 | 281 | 211 | 231 | 56 | 26 | | 26 | 1 | 22 | 146 | 21 | 28 | 14 | 55 | 1386 |
| ND | 150 | 110 | 450 | 5 | 511 | 34 | 34 | | 5 | 51 | 128 | 46 | 47 | 8 | 101 | 1680 |
| Norse | 46 | 44 | 52 | 212 | 17 | 12 | 7 | 10 | | 161 | 33 | 16 | 2 | 3 | 40 | 655 |
| HODOR | 105 | 62 | 92 | 41 | 64 | 16 | 27 | 48 | 115 | | 23 | | 41 | 17 | 40 | 691 |
| Terra | 96 | 48 | 172 | 100 | 47 | 5 | 119 | 99 | 32 | 18 | | 16 | 18 | 2 | 30 | 802 |
| ASC | 42 | 102 | 188 | 50 | 70 | 15 | 20 | 30 | 28 | | 22 | | 30 | 3 | 32 | 632 |
| COBRA | 69 | 54 | 26 | 20 | 9 | 14 | 14 | 6 | 2 | 26 | 55 | 12 | | 6 | 9 | 322 |
| GBP | 15 | 28 | 35 | 29 | 68 | 9 | 27 | 23 | 9 | 24 | 9 | 6 | 7 | | 24 | 313 |
| Other | 156 | 149 | 200 | 158 | 200 | 209 | 312 | 211 | 78 | 75 | 87 | 67 | 42 | 42 | 391 | 2377 |
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
| Total | 3221 | 3028 | 3098 | 3775 | 2190 | 2700 | 1494 | 2128 | 1193 | 1162 | 878 | 679 | 524 | 202 | 1330 | 27602 |
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
Top 10 hostile days: (i.e. highest number of incs BF had on one particular day was 185)
Code:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| BF | 185 | 173 | 167 | 163 | 144 | 127 | 106 | 104 | 92 | 84 | 83 || 52.17% |
| p3n | 130 | 125 | 114 | 101 | 97 | 89 | 87 | 86 | 85 | 85 | 84 || 41.05% |
| Face | 239 | 239 | 210 | 175 | 174 | 162 | 158 | 154 | 137 | 129 | 128 || 45.88% |
| CT | 137 | 130 | 128 | 124 | 116 | 111 | 111 | 111 | 106 | 103 | 101 || 36.07% |
| RB | 114 | 112 | 111 | 111 | 109 | 101 | 101 | 88 | 86 | 82 | 81 || 40.96% |
| Ult | 149 | 129 | 124 | 123 | 110 | 109 | 107 | 104 | 102 | 100 | 96 || 41.79% |
| HR | 102 | 70 | 70 | 66 | 65 | 60 | 60 | 55 | 55 | 52 | 36 || 49.86% |
| ND | 102 | 92 | 71 | 70 | 66 | 64 | 59 | 58 | 56 | 53 | 52 || 44.23% |
| Norse | 79 | 77 | 37 | 32 | 21 | 20 | 20 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 16 || 54.35% |
| HODOR | 45 | 44 | 44 | 37 | 35 | 33 | 32 | 29 | 28 | 25 | 22 || 54.12% |
| Terra | 91 | 69 | 58 | 56 | 39 | 38 | 38 | 32 | 28 | 27 | 24 || 62.34% |
| ASC | 59 | 49 | 36 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 27 | 25 | 24 | 23 | 22 || 55.70% |
| COBRA | 39 | 35 | 21 | 21 | 20 | 19 | 15 | 15 | 11 | 10 | 9 || 66.77% |
| GBP | 27 | 23 | 20 | 20 | 19 | 19 | 16 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 13 || 64.54% |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most hostile fleets from: (i.e. top hostile to BF were p3n and Faceless)
Code:
----------------------------------------------
| Black Flag | p3nguins | Faceless |
| p3nguins | RainbowS | Black Flag |
| Faceless | Black Flag | Conspiracy |
| Conspiracy | Ultores | Faceless |
| RainbowS | p3nguins | NewDawn |
| Ultores | Conspiracy | Black Flag |
| Howling Rain | p3nguins | Black Flag |
| NewDawn | RainbowS | Faceless |
| Norsemen | Conspiracy | HODORS |
| HODORS | Norsemen | Black Flag |
| Terra | Faceless | Howling Rain |
| ASSCENDANCY | Faceless | p3nguins |
| COBRA | Black Flag | Terra |
| GBP | RainbowS | Faceless |
----------------------------------------------
Stats for the first half of the round PT 0 - PT 528
Code:
| BF | p3n | Face | CT | RB | Ult | HR | ND | Norse | HODOR | Terra | ASC | COBRA | GBP | Other | Total |
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
| BF | | 377 | 177 | 26 | 39 | 93 | 52 | 110 | 78 | 51 | 50 | 63 | 9 | | 42 | 1167 |
| p3n | 393 | | 185 | | 214 | 30 | 94 | 121 | 81 | 35 | 28 | 61 | 37 | 5 | 34 | 1318 |
| Face | 78 | 65 | | 68 | 108 | 26 | 103 | 316 | 29 | 142 | 11 | 165 | 37 | 8 | 41 | 1197 |
| CT | 76 | | 73 | | 80 | 1157 | 82 | 8 | 49 | 50 | 31 | 16 | 19 | 33 | 38 | 1712 |
| RB | 80 | 186 | 126 | 73 | | 2 | 73 | 80 | 19 | 38 | 18 | 54 | 6 | 35 | 29 | 819 |
| Ult | 134 | 48 | 90 | 1264 | 2 | | 38 | 46 | 21 | 36 | 14 | 27 | 17 | 10 | 20 | 1767 |
| HR | 104 | 109 | 145 | 93 | 51 | 24 | | 26 | 1 | 13 | 41 | 12 | 9 | 9 | 33 | 670 |
| ND | 142 | 93 | 257 | 5 | 96 | 34 | 34 | | 5 | 14 | 59 | 19 | 9 | 8 | 50 | 825 |
| Norse | 12 | 23 | 17 | 38 | 17 | 12 | 7 | 10 | | 79 | 7 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 19 | 254 |
| HODOR | 62 | 54 | 81 | 36 | 48 | 15 | 18 | 13 | 67 | | 18 | | 22 | 6 | 29 | 469 |
| Terra | 83 | 15 | 71 | 8 | 47 | 3 | 18 | 31 | 9 | 10 | | 4 | 1 | | 13 | 313 |
| ASC | 39 | 98 | 155 | 15 | 50 | 12 | 4 | 23 | 26 | | 2 | | 21 | | 21 | 466 |
| COBRA | 63 | 39 | 21 | 10 | 9 | 11 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 13 | 12 | | 6 | 6 | 214 |
| GBP | 15 | 21 | 35 | 27 | 50 | 9 | 12 | 16 | 9 | 18 | 3 | 6 | 7 | | 16 | 244 |
| Other | 134 | 100 | 126 | 76 | 88 | 87 | 134 | 107 | 37 | 48 | 51 | 49 | 10 | 18 | 116 | 1181 |
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
| Total | 1415 | 1228 | 1559 | 1739 | 899 | 1515 | 673 | 909 | 433 | 550 | 346 | 496 | 206 | 141 | 507 | 12616 |
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
Stats for the second half of the round PT 529 - PT 1153
Code:
| BF | p3n | Face | CT | RB | Ult | HR | ND | Norse | HODOR | Terra | ASC | COBRA | GBP | Other | Total |
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
| BF | | 313 | 416 | 5 | 8 | 233 | 59 | 11 | 212 | 185 | 13 | 19 | 17 | | 79 | 1570 |
| p3n | 68 | | 151 | | 643 | | 153 | 37 | 66 | 24 | 46 | 16 | 69 | 14 | 33 | 1320 |
| Face | 1040 | 193 | | 693 | 39 | 12 | 133 | 298 | 170 | 126 | 39 | 32 | 54 | | 126 | 2955 |
| CT | 4 | | 415 | | 15 | 807 | 139 | | 187 | 48 | 99 | 25 | 30 | | 62 | 1831 |
| RB | 24 | 968 | 37 | 55 | | | 7 | 648 | | 44 | | 11 | | 2 | 61 | 1857 |
| Ult | 377 | | 2 | 745 | | | 1 | | 11 | 6 | 26 | 6 | 14 | | 43 | 1231 |
| HR | 164 | 172 | 66 | 138 | 5 | 2 | | | | 9 | 105 | 9 | 19 | 5 | 22 | 716 |
| ND | 8 | 17 | 193 | | 415 | | | | | 37 | 69 | 27 | 38 | | 51 | 855 |
| Norse | 34 | 21 | 35 | 174 | | | | | | 82 | 26 | 8 | | | 21 | 401 |
| HODOR | 43 | 8 | 11 | 5 | 16 | 1 | 9 | 35 | 48 | | 5 | | 19 | 11 | 11 | 222 |
| Terra | 13 | 33 | 101 | 92 | | 2 | 101 | 68 | 23 | 8 | | 12 | 17 | 2 | 17 | 489 |
| ASC | 3 | 4 | 33 | 35 | 20 | 3 | 16 | 7 | 2 | | 20 | | 9 | 3 | 11 | 166 |
| COBRA | 6 | 15 | 5 | 10 | | 3 | 10 | 4 | | 10 | 42 | | | | 3 | 108 |
| GBP | | 7 | | 2 | 18 | | 15 | 7 | | 6 | 6 | | | | 8 | 69 |
| Other | 22 | 49 | 74 | 82 | 112 | 122 | 178 | 104 | 41 | 27 | 36 | 18 | 32 | 24 | 275 | 1196 |
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
| Total | 1806 | 1800 | 1539 | 2036 | 1291 | 1185 | 821 | 1219 | 760 | 612 | 532 | 183 | 318 | 61 | 823 | 14986 |
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
Stats for the last 5 days: PT 1033 - PT 1153
Code:
| BF | p3n | Face | CT | RB | Ult | HR | ND | Norse | HODOR | Terra | ASC | COBRA | GBP | Other | Total |
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
| BF | | | 46 | 2 | 1 | 10 | 47 | | 39 | 4 | 3 | 5 | | | 15 | 172 |
| p3n | | | 71 | | 23 | | 29 | | 3 | 12 | 15 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 13 | 189 |
| Face | 95 | 142 | | 65 | 11 | | 7 | | 29 | 17 | 15 | 2 | 30 | | 20 | 433 |
| CT | 1 | | 18 | | 4 | 192 | 30 | | | 29 | 48 | 6 | | | 21 | 349 |
| RB | 18 | 46 | 26 | 32 | | | | 242 | | 4 | | 9 | | 2 | 14 | 393 |
| Ult | 20 | | | 162 | | | | | 11 | | 13 | | 7 | | 6 | 219 |
| HR | 155 | 42 | 20 | 61 | 1 | | | | | | | 2 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 296 |
| ND | | | | | 131 | | | | | 5 | 3 | 2 | 6 | | 13 | 160 |
| Norse | 20 | 10 | 9 | 1 | | | | | | 27 | 5 | 2 | | | 7 | 81 |
| HODOR | 2 | 7 | 1 | 5 | 2 | | 1 | 1 | 21 | | | | | 5 | 3 | 48 |
| Terra | 7 | 13 | 26 | 28 | | | | 5 | 10 | 1 | | | 10 | 1 | 7 | 108 |
| ASC | | 1 | 2 | 17 | 12 | | 1 | 2 | 1 | | | | | | | 36 |
| COBRA | | 1 | 4 | 2 | | 3 | | 2 | | | 4 | | | | | 16 |
| GBP | | 5 | | 1 | 2 | | 3 | | | | | | | | | 11 |
| Other | 7 | 3 | 11 | 26 | 17 | 8 | 23 | 11 | 7 | | 7 | | 9 | 4 | 54 | 187 |
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
| Total | 325 | 270 | 234 | 402 | 204 | 213 | 141 | 263 | 121 | 99 | 113 | 37 | 78 | 18 | 180 | 2698 |
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
If anyone wants these stats for a particular tick period then feel free to PM me..
|
|
|
29 Sep 2015, 19:19
|
#14
|
Sain†s
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Nothing to argue with there. Makes a nice change!
__________________
☠ | ROCK | BowS | Sain†s
|
|
|
29 Sep 2015, 21:12
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran
No reason. Maybe a little due to the talk about BF being the god of defense. But yeah round was decided in the political sphere. And IMHO, 4205 incs showed the other block slacked a little in attack aswell. I think the sum stagnation and stats were the main cause of that.
|
I don't see anyone stating anything remotely close to praising Black Flag's defence. The only praise given was at EORC by myself which deserved a mention because without the defence organisation, we would've been taken out in the first wave of concentrated incoming. I also praised Faceless' defence, too.
Yes, concentrated incoming. We did experience concentrated incoming even though people will claim otherwise. Our bulk of incoming was concentrated. There were about 3-4 coordinated attacks against us in periods of 3-4 days. Other than that, incoming was light.
And what's this speculation about blocks? There weren't really blocks this round. p3nguins helped Faceless periodically, and CT/HR etc helped BF for about 3-4 days, then it became a solo war.
I won't deny that Faceless experienced heavier hostilities than Black Flag, but from what I gather from the smaller tags, Faceless were bottom feeding and ended up antagonising those alliances.
It wasn't difficult to get support against Faceless when they shot off to #1 with a 16m lead at around tick 500. That was their fundamental mistake. This is called chess strategy because it's easy to influence people when X alliance is 15m+ ahead. This is why we use a stocking tactic (Ultores has used it too).
I will openly admit that Black Flag is not the best defensive alliance, but we have the organisation, member-base, discipline and DCs to put up a good fight, which is how we've managed to win the past two rounds. It's not just down to politics, even though politics has played a role in our success.
Faceless played a good round, and I have already congratulated some of their members on a good attempt. If they had won instead of Black Flag, then it would've been a deserved win for them too because they equally fought for it.
Stats were bad, but let this be a lesson to us all; don't let Tia do stats again!
Last edited by Clouds; 29 Sep 2015 at 21:20.
|
|
|
29 Sep 2015, 21:41
|
#16
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 40
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Interesting stats. Conspiracy were really bad at defending, only 1/3 recalls!
From a selfish point of view just looking at Terra and for a first round we didn't do too bad. More incoming a than most around us yet over 50% recalls which considering the strategy dictated no def first few weeks and having only 17 members (14 active) was a pretty good achievement. We'll see how next round goes as we had no political agenda this round, avoiding wars where possible (although faceless decided to target quite heavily at some point oddly , particularly since it was a time they could have still competed with BF for the win)
__________________
Kez
R62 Rogues Rank 192
R63 Terra Rank 39
R64 Terra - defence duties
R65 Faceless - defence duties
R66 Faceless - rank 90 (inactive half of round)
R67 Norseman - Rank 26
R68 Norseman - Rank 19
R69 P3nguins - Rank 22 - Scanner
R74 Faceless - Rank 4
R75 Heresy - Rank 15
R76 RaGe - Rank 4 - defence duties
|
|
|
29 Sep 2015, 23:36
|
#17
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Pretty much shows that p3n didn't backstab fl in any way - and them breaking a nap to hit p3n was well thought out...clearly
|
|
|
29 Sep 2015, 23:37
|
#18
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Also clearly indicates Rainbows antagonized p3n into hitting them. Once again, BB thinking hitting an alliance without retaliation, then being retalled constitutes "bottom feeding". Fail
|
|
|
30 Sep 2015, 00:23
|
#19
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
Pretty much shows that p3n didn't backstab fl in any way - and them breaking a nap to hit p3n was well thought out...clearly
|
It was more like cancelling an agreement without warning all parts. It was really not a backstab.
__________________
mxy
|
|
|
30 Sep 2015, 07:39
|
#20
|
Dictator
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 634
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Clearly you dont know all the details but thats fine. Fl dropped a nap with no warning, no cool down and an agreement we had committed to til end of round.
Fl aren't worth shit anymore. This is twice they have dropped such naps with p3ng. We have had many opportunities to drop naps with them for our own gain but stuck with them. Sad to say they would rather have enemies than friends.
I'll make it clear now also. I have no problem hitting bows whilst they allow butcher to run their politics. They jump on the wagon as soon as they see amother ally getting inc but dislike the consequences. I stuck by bows for many rounds and convinced allies not to hit them when they had the chance. I've worked perfectly fine with their hc until it comes to butcher. If they want to talk and fix things then he isn't the one to do it.
Last edited by Munkee; 30 Sep 2015 at 07:51.
|
|
|
30 Sep 2015, 08:03
|
#21
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran
FL Block (FL): 4205 incs
BF Block (BF+CT+P3NG): 9291 incs
|
It's not fair to compare the incs of 1 alliance with those of a block of 3. Faceless had by far the most incs of any alliance this round. While that in itself is no achievement, calling them fencers is quite a twist of the truth.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
30 Sep 2015, 08:19
|
#22
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munkee
Clearly you dont know all the details but thats fine. Fl dropped a nap with no warning, no cool down and an agreement we had committed to til end of round.
Fl aren't worth shit anymore. This is twice they have dropped such naps with p3ng. We have had many opportunities to drop naps with them for our own gain but stuck with them. Sad to say they would rather have enemies than friends.
I'll make it clear now also. I have no problem hitting bows whilst they allow butcher to run their politics. They jump on the wagon as soon as they see amother ally getting inc but dislike the consequences. I stuck by bows for many rounds and convinced allies not to hit them when they had the chance. I've worked perfectly fine with their hc until it comes to butcher. If they want to talk and fix things then he isn't the one to do it.
|
I love how you are avoiding the obvious here. According to FL and many other allies p3ng had agreed to hit a certain target, claimed targets accordingly, then without telling the others in "the block", went hitting something else.
Sadly, BowS hadnt "jumped on the wagon", so i wernt in that "block channel", so i just go by what i was told, wich in my perfect little work sounds exactly like something p3nguins wouldve done.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
30 Sep 2015, 09:07
|
#23
|
Dictator
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 634
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Fl knew and were told we couldn't hit at 18:30.
Who are the many other allies? There's only ultores you could be referring to but of course you have to even exaggerate a comment like that to form another butcher argument. Theres good reasons why you aren't involved in discussions and it's mainly due to your mouth leaking so much shit you are a liability to anyones plans.
The band wagon reference is always in relation to bows jumping on a hit on p3ng. I have spoken with cr0 and greenie many times since p3ng came back and it always seems to involve a comment of "we dont know why butcher wants to hit you".
|
|
|
30 Sep 2015, 09:19
|
#24
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Munkee, you are meaning that you, THE hc in p3ng, agreed to hit BF without even knowing you were capable of doing so? Really?
What was funny was seeing your Terran only alliance hitting an ally with more specs and lancers than BF had during the following days. Showed coherence.
__________________
mxy
Last edited by fortran; 30 Sep 2015 at 09:24.
|
|
|
30 Sep 2015, 10:04
|
#25
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munkee
Fl knew and were told we couldn't hit at 18:30.
Who are the many other allies? There's only ultores you could be referring to but of course you have to even exaggerate a comment like that to form another butcher argument. Theres good reasons why you aren't involved in discussions and it's mainly due to your mouth leaking so much shit you are a liability to anyones plans.
The band wagon reference is always in relation to bows jumping on a hit on p3ng. I have spoken with cr0 and greenie many times since p3ng came back and it always seems to involve a comment of "we dont know why butcher wants to hit you".
|
Funny how FL seems to have a diffrent idea of how it went down mUnkee. And FL will always have the benefit of the doubt as long you are the other part of it.
We never jumped in on a hit at p3nguins, if we wanted too, we wouldve joined the BF/P3ng war early on.
The fact that you cant be trusted, and that you have kept proving this over the last 6-7 rounds is why i will never choose to work with p3ngs unless i have to.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
30 Sep 2015, 10:56
|
#26
|
Dictator
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 634
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Hey I'm more than a happy to show the proof however I'm not the one that needs to justify dropping an end of round nap. Even relig apologised for their actions and said he wouldn't have handled it like that. I don't overly care too much about your opinion of what fl thinks as you arent involved in it at all. You are just a bystander as with most situations but you get slapped on the way past for being an idiot.
As far as your other blurb goes.. you are right regarding you wont deal with us, which is why p3ng deal perfectly well with bows behind your back. We don't need to talk to you when your command doesn't agree with your actions.
You even had cr0 step down during our war with inferno because you were backing them after I kept all the other allies off you and you decided to target us the one night cr0 was looking after his sick kiddo.
Last edited by Munkee; 30 Sep 2015 at 11:05.
|
|
|
30 Sep 2015, 11:11
|
#27
|
Dictator
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 634
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran
Munkee, you are meaning that you, THE hc in p3ng, agreed to hit BF without even knowing you were capable of doing so? Really?
What was funny was seeing your Terran only alliance hitting an ally with more specs and lancers than BF had during the following days. Showed coherence.
|
I'm no hc but I choose to do politics. If people want to follow me based on my decisions then that's their choice.
We couldn't land bf due to etd Co and spec. Simple fact they know that too. I spent days telling ult and fl the same and they seemed to think differently in that bf running out of defence would allow p3ng to land. That doesn't work when they just need to keep their spec or Co home.
We hit faceless due to their shit of hitting us and breaking the agreement. They then ran to bf to get themselves a nap, which was either declined or waiting upon whilst then trying to form another hit on bf at the same time after we defended their cheap shot on us and their idea of easy roids went away.
When we came round to picking which faceless to hit we scanned them and hit the ones without spec which was actually quite a few and the odd cath they had. Bf understood why we had to do this, unlike fl ult. Ter strat helped us get 2nd place when we started out with 15 less members. I'm more than happy with our finish based on how idle we were. Its a credit to how shit others played and crashed around us.
A closing point, whilst you can whine all you want about how this ended it is clear p3ng hit bf plenty. We did our bit and it's good to see those who were pushing to hit BF never even got close to the incoming we gave them. If you were on the battlefield beside us or fl I might give you more time.
|
|
|
30 Sep 2015, 11:18
|
#28
|
Sain†s
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Getting away from the p3ng/FL/Bows shitfest for a moment, Bram's breakdown of stats actually does reveal how concentrated our incoming was on the few days that people willingly coordinated to hit us. The top four days we had 185, 173, 167 and 163 hostile fleets respectively, but those numbers drop off quickly after that, in a way that they don't for, say, FL or CT. On those nights though, we had our work cut out, and we covered quite a huge number of fleets with solid defensive organisation.
The other thing that the incoming stats don't accurately show is the number of fakes that landed anyway, and given that most of our concentrated incoming was from p3ng, and they quickly stopped sending real DE and started sending only fakes padded with CO, the recall numbers don't demonstrate how many fakes landed and failed to cap. It'd be interesting to understand how much of that was prevalent for other alliances, especially in a round where the stats were so generous to willing fakers.
__________________
☠ | ROCK | BowS | Sain†s
|
|
|
30 Sep 2015, 11:33
|
#29
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munkee
Hey I'm more than a happy to show the proof however I'm not the one that needs to justify dropping an end of round nap. Even relig apologised for their actions and said he wouldn't have handled it like that. I don't overly care too much about your opinion of what fl thinks as you arent involved in it at all. You are just a bystander as with most situations but you get slapped on the way past for being an idiot.
As far as your other blurb goes.. you are right regarding you wont deal with us, which is why p3ng deal perfectly well with bows behind your back. We don't need to talk to you when your command doesn't agree with your actions.
You even had cr0 step down during our war with inferno because you were backing them after I kept all the other allies off you and you decided to target us the one night cr0 was looking after his sick kiddo.
|
You have been happy to post private conversations all over the forums in the past, so i dont doubt it that you can "prove" it by your own logic. Im pretty sure claiming targets in a sheet and saying you are gonna attack X is very diffrent saying that you wont attack X. You can call Ult/FL liars all you want and people can make up their own opinion on who is right or wrong.
This is one of the reason why p3ng end up in issues with every alliance out there basicly, your divide and conquer tactic failed working 5 rounds ago. The reason why im avoiding to work with p3nguins is after the round we were allied, and that p3ngs turned out to be a very bad allie for BowS. I honestly dont see p3nguins ever climbing back into the position where they can win planetarion any time soon due to your behaviour and dealings.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
30 Sep 2015, 12:47
|
#30
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
The other thing that the incoming stats don't accurately show is the number of fakes that landed anyway, and given that most of our concentrated incoming was from p3ng, and they quickly stopped sending real DE and started sending only fakes padded with CO, the recall numbers don't demonstrate how many fakes landed and failed to cap. It'd be interesting to understand how much of that was prevalent for other alliances, especially in a round where the stats were so generous to willing fakers.
|
Agreed. A better stat would be 'landed and capped', not just 'landed'.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
30 Sep 2015, 17:31
|
#31
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
You have been happy to post private conversations all over the forums in the past, so i dont doubt it that you can "prove" it by your own logic. Im pretty sure claiming targets in a sheet and saying you are gonna attack X is very diffrent saying that you wont attack X. You can call Ult/FL liars all you want and people can make up their own opinion on who is right or wrong.
This is one of the reason why p3ng end up in issues with every alliance out there basicly, your divide and conquer tactic failed working 5 rounds ago. The reason why im avoiding to work with p3nguins is after the round we were allied, and that p3ngs turned out to be a very bad allie for BowS. I honestly dont see p3nguins ever climbing back into the position where they can win planetarion any time soon due to your behaviour and dealings.
|
Cretin, When do you ever prove any of the spiel you come out with or back up any of your statements with logic, fact or proof? It's okay though BB, we will accept your incs with our usual good grace and then return to bottom feeding on Bows again!
|
|
|
30 Sep 2015, 18:05
|
#32
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
Cretin, When do you ever prove any of the spiel you come out with or back up any of your statements with logic, fact or proof? It's okay though BB, we will accept your incs with our usual good grace and then return to bottom feeding on Bows again!
|
You seem to have missed the point.
p3ngs claim was, afaik, they couldnt land BF easily, so they decided to go away from the agreement with "the block" to hit BowS/HR instead.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
30 Sep 2015, 19:05
|
#33
|
Dictator
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 634
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
We were hitting bows well before any of this. Don't act as if we were looking for cheap roids the incoming stats already showed this.
Once again though. P3ng hit bf plenty if you have an issue with what happened up the ranks why don't you get involved in it.
|
|
|
30 Sep 2015, 19:25
|
#34
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munkee
We were hitting bows well before any of this. Don't act as if we were looking for cheap roids the incoming stats already showed this.
Once again though. P3ng hit bf plenty if you have an issue with what happened up the ranks why don't you get involved in it.
|
Well the same old story with ND/p3ng/insert allie hitting us when the chance was there.
Even if we had the chance, im not sure we wouldve.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 11:31
|
#35
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Well the same old story with ND/p3ng/insert allie hitting us when the chance was there.
|
To be frank, to a large extent, this is your alliance's own fault. In my experience, RainbowS is uniquely sensitive to getting roided. If you galraid 4 RainbowS planets, you can expect to get hit back several nights in return, no matter how early in the round it is. Ever since its inception, this kind of (in my opinion over-)reaction has embroiled RainbowS in multiple unnecessary 1-on-1 wars with alliances that had and have no particular desire to fight you, but are forced to respond to your continuing hostility. This was true for Ascendancy in the first half of r62 (when we just wanted to be left alone), I suspect it was true for ND this round (knowing a little of how they operate politically), and just from looking at P3nguins' EOR ranking, It's clear they had better things to do as well, as you yourself point out.
Worse, the RainbowS political department seems to loathe actually talking to people. So much so, in fact, that I do not even know who they are. You proclaim not to be involved in politics for RainbowS. Even assuming that's true (I have some reason to believe there's some nuance), you make every impression to speak for Rainbows, and do so more than the rest of your alliance combined, including the politics people, who are supposed to be its interface towards other alliances.
If those wars gained you anything, that would be fair enough. But RainbowS is hardly a top-tier alliance, and quite frankly, as a mid-to-low tier alliance, the best strategy is to appear invisible while the big boys have their silly little slugfests. And when you get hit by a galraid every now and again, it's better to let it go than to fly off the handle like a 17 year old kid in a pub full of body builders.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 12:22
|
#36
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
I know when you usual posts its at best, "qualified" guesses.
So i will try to update you so you have a better shot making it right next time.
Obviously you are no rocket scientist, but certain stuff does not require you to be one either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Worse, the RainbowS political department seems to loathe actually talking to people. So much so, in fact, that I do not even know who they are. You proclaim not to be involved in politics for RainbowS
|
* Now talking in #rainbows
* Topic is 'Welcome to RAINBOWS | recruitment on invite pm Daoz / Cow / Green_cat | Politics - Contact: B-Butch3r '
* Set by [DTA]Cr0 on Tue Sep 01 19:07:03 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
To be frank, to a large extent, this is your alliance's own fault. In my experience, RainbowS is uniquely sensitive to getting roided. If you galraid 4 RainbowS planets, you can expect to get hit back several nights in return, no matter how early in the round it is. Ever since its inception, this kind of (in my opinion over-)reaction has embroiled RainbowS in multiple unnecessary 1-on-1 wars with alliances that had and have no particular desire to fight you, but are forced to respond to your continuing hostility. This was true for Ascendancy in the first half of r62 (when we just wanted to be left alone), I suspect it was true for ND this round (knowing a little of how they operate politically), and just from looking at P3nguins' EOR ranking, It's clear they had better things to do as well, as you yourself point out.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B5]Londo
However we piggied BowS on your gals (twice) entirely accidentally, and much to our annoyance since we launch late. The simple fact is when you cant hit P3n/ND/FL for NAPS/alliances, and are avoiding Ult/BF/CT as the main protagonists for fear of accidentally taking sides, then Bows and Rogues gals automatically took the hits because there were not many left.
|
Planetarion news feed: Relation Change 697 NewDawn has decided to end its NAP with RainbowS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
If those wars gained you anything, that would be fair enough. But RainbowS is hardly a top-tier alliance, and quite frankly, as a mid-to-low tier alliance, the best strategy is to appear invisible while the big boys have their silly little slugfests. And when you get hit by a galraid every now and again, it's better to let it go than to fly off the handle like a 17 year old kid in a pub full of body builders.
|
If you had been following this thread, or this forum section the last few weeks it would prolly have came to your attention that there was realy never a "big boys slugfest".
So your tactic on how to behave as a mid-tier alliance would at most part this round, not been relevant no matter how "correct" or "wrong" it was.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 13:01
|
#37
|
Anti-Paperboy
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 174
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Butcher, your tactics make ISIL look like Patton
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 13:07
|
#38
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Tbh, when P3NG backed off in the deal with ULT and FL and opened a raid with hr and bows, it did the best it could imo. It helped CT because FL, after the agreement to hit BF was set between the three allies, arranged a CF with CT. It helped BF because it crippled the block that would hit it. And it thought it was also the best for P3NG as I guess the hcs there believed that ULT and FL would still try to hit BF grounding it while P3NG could bottomfeed.
It was a bit dirty but I cant condemn it.
__________________
mxy
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 14:23
|
#39
|
Dictator
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 634
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
We didn't assume anyone would hit bf and there was no element of bottom feeding. Rainbows were hitting us and hr hit two of our gals, we hit 3 hr and 10 bows. We were actually supporting New Dawn for a long time as bows decided to target them straight after hitting us so the hatred for bows was quite mutual. Rap said a number of times bows couldn't manage to stick to their agreements, which I could understand having also had the same issue with bows before.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 15:04
|
#40
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Politics - Contact: B-Butch3r
|
Then I guess I was talking to the right person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Planetarion news feed: Relation Change 697 NewDawn has decided to end its NAP with RainbowS.
|
Fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
If you had been following this thread, or this forum section the last few weeks it would prolly have came to your attention that there was realy never a "big boys slugfest".
So your tactic on how to behave as a mid-tier alliance would at most part this round, not been relevant no matter how "correct" or "wrong" it was.
|
I could've put that part of my post better, to be frank. Attempt number 2: as a mid tier alliance, the best strategy is to appear invisible, period. Even when there is no slugfest, which is usually the case during the first half of the round. And the incoming stats show that you and P3nguins have been very hostile to each other even during that time.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 15:46
|
#41
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
I could've put that part of my post better, to be frank. Attempt number 2: as a mid tier alliance, the best strategy is to appear invisible, period. Even when there is no slugfest, which is usually the case during the first half of the round. And the incoming stats show that you and P3nguins have been very hostile to each other even during that time.
|
p3nguins was around 8% of the univers and around 20% of our outgoing fleet was heading towards them in the first part.
Being fully NAPed with Terra/Ult/COBRA/Norse, and around 50% of FL/BF being offlimit + we have since our first round tried to avoid hitting the newbie training alliances(HR/ND) as much as possibole, means the numbers arnt "that high". I assume that p3ng also had a fair few NAP/deals floating around wich meant that BowS was a target for them aswell. Our incs from p3nguins escalated after they CFed with BF after their initial war.
p3nguins had very few forts, so us targetting them early on was not "intentional", just a effect of our politics and the targets avaible. The univers is too small now days i guess.
Credit were credit is due, p3nguins was able to make a pretty amazing comeback, their ability to keep motivation up and mistakes down over a full round means they outgrew BowS in the end even though initialy it was a battle i felt BowS was winning.
So i assume what you are suggesting is that alliances such as p3nguins/BowS should just ground fleets and war the mining page?
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 15:52
|
#42
|
Retard0r
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,164
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
So in short; amongst the top 4, p3ng and BF had far less incs than CT and FL, with FL having 45-50% more incs than both. BF and p3ng had roughly the same incs as bows and ult(despite the former having 20% more members than the latter). Bows sent more fleets than BF and p3ng with 10 less members, as did FL and CT.
I'd say cudos to FL, CT and Bows for their activity. And cudos to BF for massnapping and dodging incs so they didnt have to put as much into it and still win.
__________________
-Chimpie
* We do not exist *
* G-II * NoS * VsN * Ascendancy * Osiris * xVx * Ultores *
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 16:11
|
#43
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkenViking
I'd say cudos to FL, CT and Bows for their activity. And cudos to BF for massnapping and dodging incs so they didnt have to put as much into it and still win.
|
It wasn't 'mass napping' as we only had agreements with a couple of alliances, I think it was more that folk were avoiding us.
And as I said in an earlier post, most of our incoming was concentrated, which means when we got hit, it was in the region of 250~ fleets a night. When there was no coordinated hostiles on us, incoming was very light.
To my knowledge, we had official agreements with HR/ND. Everyone else was neutral. If folk don't target us, then that's hardly our fault, and we're not going to get into wars just to improve our incoming stats to please the whining crybabies on here.
Last edited by Clouds; 1 Oct 2015 at 16:18.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 16:19
|
#44
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
And as I said in an earlier post, most of our incoming was concentrated, which means when we got hit, it was in the region of 250~ fleets a night. When there was no coordinated hostiles on us, incoming was very light.
|
Accusing you of comming with "bogus data" is getting a bit old, but aint the stats that bram gave us suggesting that your max incomming was 185 inc over a 24 hour period, and that you only had 6 days with 120+ incs?
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 16:20
|
#45
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Bram's data showed that on BF:
BF | 185 | 173 | 167 | 163 | 144 | 127 | 106 | 104 | 92 | 84
8 days with more than 100 fleets, none with more than 200.
__________________
mxy
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 16:32
|
#46
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Accusing you of comming with "bogus data" is getting a bit old, but aint the stats that bram gave us suggesting that your max incomming was 185 inc over a 24 hour period, and that you only had 6 days with 120+ incs?
|
Our total incoming fleets does not mathematically make sense if you use Bram's "data". For example, if we did receive a maximum of 185 fleets for a maximum of 6 days, that's only a 1/4 of our total incoming. And besides, as I was personally DCing, I did see on some occasions hitting over 200 fleets, especially when p3n/FL/Ultores/norse/Hodors hit us.
We were coordinated against on 4 separate periods, each period lasting around 4 days, so that's about 16 days that we experienced concentrated incoming. On the first two periods, we experienced the highest amount of fleets (in the region of 200-220 a night), on the last two, it started to die down and it was around 120-150.
I haven't read Bram's stats personally myself, but if he's claiming that we received a maximum of 185 fleets a night, then his "stats" are wrong or he's lying. I don't need your approval or anyone elses for that matter, I personally witnessed the fleets on our defence page as I was helping to coordinate defence. Hell I even did a screenshot on one occasion which shows on that occasion we were on 210 fleets (I think it was the second wave of concentrated attacks). Of course, if anyone wants to see this screenshot to validate my claims, feel free to ask for it. I will not provide it on the forums due to upsetting the moderators with spam.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 16:33
|
#47
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
So i assume what you are suggesting is that alliances such as p3nguins/BowS should just ground fleets and war the mining page?
|
Yeah, that's it. Good job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
To my knowledge, we had official agreements with HR/ND. Everyone else was neutral. If folk don't target us, then that's hardly our fault, and we're not going to get into wars just to improve our incoming stats to please the whining crybabies on here.
|
I would be inclined to agree, though it's a stretch to call CT 'neutral'. Anyway, it doesn't matter, because Ult kept CT busy and was kept busy in return, while FL and P3ng were (and seem to continue to be) unable to get their act together. With those 2 NAPs, That leaves just RainbowS, trolls and idlers. No wonder you didn't get much incs!
You don't blame the winner for being too fast. You blame the losers for being too slow. Congrats to BF.
__________________
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.
Last edited by Mzyxptlk; 1 Oct 2015 at 16:40.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 16:47
|
#48
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
We were coordinated against on 4 separate periods, each period lasting around 4 days, so that's about 16 days that we experienced concentrated incoming. On the first two periods, we experienced the highest amount of fleets (in the region of 200-220 a night), on the last two, it started to die down and it was around 120-150.
|
Well im not math genious.
But what you saying is that over "hot" 4 days x 2 period you around 1600-1700 incs, and the "cold" 4 days x 2 period 1000-1100 incs, 16 days = 2600-2800, and the rest of the 49 day round you were averaging 5-6 incs each night?
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 16:50
|
#49
|
Dictator
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 634
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
. I assume that p3ng also had a fair few NAP/deals floating around wich meant that BowS was a target for them aswell. Our incs from p3nguins escalated after they CFed with BF after their initial war.
|
You were hitting us as soon as you knew bf were. I don't know whether it was coordinated or not but we were getting a lot of rainbows fleets considering as you say we aren't forted so you would have had to specifically targeted us. I even said to you and cr0 you don't know what you are getting into and if you didn't stop hitting us we would hit you right back as soon as we were done with bf.
You then went on to suggest we suddenly decided to target you out of the blue.
I fully agree with mz comment about silence. You never once came to p3ng suggesting we were hitting you or giving you too much inc. However I came to you and cr0 and asked why you were hitting us. You then stated we had hit you first. There was no going back from that point as it was a completely pointless argument. We were at war with bf for nearly a week and you tried to say we had been targeting you. The truth is you wanted to be above us and decided to follow bf in the hope we wouldn't bother hitting you back.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 17:11
|
#50
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munkee
You were hitting us as soon as you knew bf were. I don't know whether it was coordinated or not but we were getting a lot of rainbows fleets considering as you say we aren't forted so you would have had to specifically targeted us. I even said to you and cr0 you don't know what you are getting into and if you didn't stop hitting us we would hit you right back as soon as we were done with bf.
You then went on to suggest we suddenly decided to target you out of the blue.
I fully agree with mz comment about silence. You never once came to p3ng suggesting we were hitting you or giving you too much inc. However I came to you and cr0 and asked why you were hitting us. You then stated we had hit you first. There was no going back from that point as it was a completely pointless argument. We were at war with bf for nearly a week and you tried to say we had been targeting you. The truth is you wanted to be above us and decided to follow bf in the hope we wouldn't bother hitting you back.
|
I dont think we joined the BF/p3ng war, i think the eventualy hostile came after you had CFed with BF?
900ish out of the 1100ish p3ng incs came in the second half of the round.
On a "normal" night at war with p3ng it was 40-70 fleets incomming from you.
BowS being the most active alliance in regards to sending out fleets on attack, 10 incomming fleet on average daily from BowS the first half of the round is certainly not that much.
No, we did not come to you saying that you were giving us too much incs, as you wernt giving us any basicly. After the "official" war declaration i had several atempts to get ReligFree/FL to negotiate a cooldown between us. In the past you have been very good at comming up with logs and screenshots of private convos, and i encourage you to come up with one from this round where you came to me asking why we were giving you a hard time.
This round BowS tried to be above as many as possibole, being above you would just be a part of that goal, though ptargetting p3nguins out of the blue would not be one of the ways i wouldve gone about it to achieve it.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:36.
| |