|
|
1 Oct 2015, 17:28
|
#51
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
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?
|
This post is hilarious. Pretty much sums it up. Its easy to win when someone is hitting another alliance while you hit them failtard. Hereby confirming that you were just being a moron trying to freeroll on p3n while bf hit us. All good though, you got pwned...even with emp being grossly overpowered
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 17:31
|
#52
|
KK
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
And that you mention p3n and bows in the same mould is also laughable. Bows is a training alliance. P3n has veteran players who generally cant be assed to put the effort in to win - but they at least know how to
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 18:33
|
#53
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 245
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
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.
|
At what tick was this?
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 18:40
|
#54
|
Anti-Paperboy
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 174
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypton
And that you mention p3n and bows in the same mould is also laughable. Bows is a training alliance. P3n has veteran players who generally cant be assed to put the effort in to win - but they at least know how to
|
I'd like to remind you Butcher Rogues was a joke and we beat you the first round(61) and were beating you the second until we kicked a bunch final tick. I bet 1v1 HR or ND could take you.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 18:43
|
#55
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 245
|
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?
|
One possible nuance: my data is per day.
I.e. - day 1 is PT 0 - 23
- day 2 is PT 24 - 47
- day 3 is PT 48 - 71
- ...
If incs landed around the tick at which the 'day switches' then some incs may be counted as part of the 'next' day..
Ofc we all know that most incs landing in the morning and not late in the evening so how much this effects the data remains to be seen.
Anyway, if I got some time later I'll post the number of incs per day.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 19:34
|
#56
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
http://i.imgur.com/GIIKeBT.png?1
The red highlight signifies hostiles which were p3nguins/Faceless at the time.
If Bram's data is accurate then I suppose the game itself is lying.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 19:53
|
#57
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 245
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
http://i.imgur.com/GIIKeBT.png?1
The red highlight signifies hostiles which were p3nguins/Faceless at the time.
If Bram's data is accurate then I suppose the game itself is lying.
|
And you answered all but my question.
I asked what tick was that..
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 21:53
|
#58
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 245
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
http://i.imgur.com/GIIKeBT.png?1
The red highlight signifies hostiles which were p3nguins/Faceless at the time.
If Bram's data is accurate then I suppose the game itself is lying.
|
You also have a screenshot of the top of the alliance def page?
Checking the fleets suggest that this screenshot was taken between PT 659 and PT 660.
Latest fleet is at eta 7, these all had landing tick 666.
That means eta 1 was landing tick 660.
This matches with your fleets which are shown at eta 4 to 7:5:7 and that fleet had landing tick PT 663.
So the totals shown by PA should've shown the not yet recalled incs between PT 660 and PT 666.
Counting the attack and fake attack fleets shows 150 fleets vs 210 in your screenshot.
Counting the defend and fake defend fleets shows 131 fleets vs 149 in your screenshot. This difference can be explained by PL def fleets in the forts; the data I have only contains actually launches.
As for the attack fleets: atm I have no explanation why your screenshot shows 210 fleets..
The screenshot shows 52 attack fleets and 'your fleets defending in the alliance' shows an additional 8 fleets (well, 7 + 1 recall)
Checking the data I received contains all these 60 fleets.
It also contains another 90 fleets not in the screenshot.
Running the stats for PT 660 - PT 666
Code:
| BF | p3n | Face | CT | RB | Ult | HR | ND | Norse | HODOR | Terra | ASC | COBRA | GBP | Other | Total |
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
| BF | | 49 | 69 | | | 17 | 2 | | | 10 | | | | | 3 | 150 |
|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
Now another set of data: HR did news all BF planets at PT 700.
Luckily: PT 660 - 666 nicely fits in the range of the news scans;
Unluckily: a news scan on a planet receiving a fleet does not show if it is hostile or not;
So need to take a bit of a guess: - if the planet sending a fleet is/was in the galaxy (or has eta 4) then it was a def fleet;
- if the planet sending a fleet is in BF then it was a confirmed def fleet (outgoing fleets do show the type in N scans and all BF were scanned)
- if the planet sending a fleet is not in BF then *very likely* it was an attack fleet;
Using my older tool to count the incs based on the news scan database and limiting it to Attack/Unknown fleets shows:
Code:
non Black Flag: 152
Black Flag: 0
Faceless: 71 --- p3nguins: 49 --- Ultores: 17 --- HODORS: 10 --- No Alliance: 3 --- Howling Rain: 2
So the data we got from News scans are very close to the data we got from the fleets as provided by the PA team.
The data is way off from the count in your screenshot..
I can think of three possibilities: - a bug on the alliance def page
- members in BF pre-reported 60 fleets with wrong landing ticks
- a photoshop job
There might be other reasons ofc..
But the stats I posted being wrong seems fairly unlikely since my other data source shows the very similar numbers.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 22:06
|
#59
|
Sain†s
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Your data under-reports BF inc by ~200 fleets compared to the game's own stats (as it does everyone else's by a statistically significant amount), so I'm inclined to think something's up with your algorithm.
Note: I'm not questioning your analysis; I'm questioning your data. The screenshot Clouds posted is genuine, and most of BF will have seen the inc numbers on the busy nights.
__________________
☠ | ROCK | BowS | Sain†s
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 22:10
|
#60
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 245
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
Your data under-reports BF inc by ~200 fleets compared to the game's own stats (as it does everyone else's by a statistically significant amount), so I'm inclined to think something's up with your algorithm.
|
I suggest you read the first lines of my post and check the first part of stats.
PA stats are not really correct in my opinion..
For alliance Black Flag it counts all the incoming of planets that were in Black Flag at PT 1153.
If a planet played outside of tag till PT 1151 and then joined tag at PT 1152 then it would count all its incs as 'Black Flag' incs; which is not correct IMO.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 22:11
|
#61
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
I was waiting for excuses such as:
- photoshoped or
- manually added fake incoming
While the former is possible, I neither have the technogical skills to perform such a task nor would I put effort into such a pointless debate. This screenshot came directly from my mobile device.
The latter is not possible because (as far as I'm aware) you can only report incoming in conjunction with incoming scans. I know this because I have tested it. It returns with an error message if you try and manually add incoming if there is no valid incoming scan performed.
I'm not going to get into a crippled debate over your stats. Who cares. I certainly don't. I was merely providing the screenshot to show I wasn't lying when I said that on some nights we experienced over 200 fleets.
Last edited by Clouds; 1 Oct 2015 at 22:16.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 22:14
|
#62
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 245
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Incs per day: alliance based on when the fleet launched
Code:
Incs per day:
| Day | From | To || BF | p3n | Face | CT | RB | Ult | HR | ND | Norse | HODOR | Terra | ASC | COBRA | GBP | Other | Total |
|-----|------|------||-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
| 0 | 0 | 23 || 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 24 | 47 || 27 | 24 | 32 | 28 | 54 | 41 | 55 | 39 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 119 | 453 |
| 2 | 48 | 71 || 39 | 38 | 85 | 59 | 65 | 43 | 29 | 42 | 11 | 25 | 4 | 17 | 6 | 5 | 56 | 524 |
| 3 | 72 | 95 || 37 | 37 | 54 | 53 | 46 | 81 | 18 | 64 | 19 | 28 | 6 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 61 | 549 |
| 4 | 96 | 119 || 66 | 31 | 22 | 76 | 20 | 82 | 70 | 28 | 12 | 15 | 9 | 49 | 11 | 20 | 61 | 572 |
| 5 | 120 | 143 || 42 | 56 | 80 | 98 | 18 | 88 | 17 | 70 | 9 | 22 | 5 | 24 | 5 | 27 | 45 | 606 |
| 6 | 144 | 167 || 46 | 28 | 58 | 111 | 63 | 124 | 32 | 58 | 21 | 11 | 5 | 16 | 19 | 19 | 28 | 639 |
| 7 | 168 | 191 || 26 | 39 | 43 | 111 | 28 | 129 | 23 | 29 | 18 | 32 | 9 | 16 | 5 | 1 | 51 | 560 |
| 8 | 192 | 215 || 57 | 34 | 69 | 106 | 21 | 96 | 29 | 10 | 7 | 11 | 6 | 29 | 21 | 20 | 30 | 546 |
| 9 | 216 | 239 || 37 | 101 | 53 | 128 | 23 | 83 | 19 | 52 | 13 | 13 | 4 | 9 | 6 | 11 | 65 | 617 |
| 10 | 240 | 263 || 82 | 125 | 42 | 103 | 34 | 109 | 14 | 36 | 9 | 33 | 32 | 5 | 2 | 23 | 45 | 694 |
| 11 | 264 | 287 || 83 | 84 | 92 | 100 | 27 | 102 | 26 | 29 | 4 | 44 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 11 | 49 | 657 |
| 12 | 288 | 311 || 104 | 61 | 60 | 93 | 27 | 104 | 11 | 56 | 3 | 14 | 21 | 59 | 21 | 6 | 41 | 681 |
| 13 | 312 | 335 || 76 | 97 | 74 | 111 | 43 | 81 | 17 | 24 | 7 | 44 | 3 | 29 | 0 | 15 | 38 | 659 |
| 14 | 336 | 359 || 19 | 42 | 84 | 70 | 23 | 85 | 36 | 33 | 10 | 4 | 58 | 29 | 35 | 15 | 61 | 604 |
| 15 | 360 | 383 || 9 | 52 | 69 | 69 | 78 | 123 | 70 | 37 | 13 | 35 | 17 | 15 | 3 | 19 | 41 | 650 |
| 16 | 384 | 407 || 20 | 65 | 43 | 81 | 42 | 83 | 17 | 102 | 37 | 29 | 56 | 19 | 5 | 16 | 61 | 676 |
| 17 | 408 | 431 || 32 | 85 | 87 | 69 | 55 | 94 | 12 | 19 | 2 | 19 | 39 | 27 | 39 | 4 | 76 | 659 |
| 18 | 432 | 455 || 36 | 34 | 73 | 76 | 60 | 74 | 60 | 39 | 3 | 45 | 6 | 36 | 3 | 2 | 66 | 613 |
| 19 | 456 | 479 || 17 | 82 | 24 | 101 | 39 | 50 | 60 | 12 | 20 | 20 | 15 | 22 | 1 | 2 | 74 | 539 |
| 20 | 480 | 503 || 185 | 114 | 30 | 25 | 24 | 37 | 32 | 14 | 20 | 11 | 4 | 17 | 0 | 7 | 47 | 567 |
| 21 | 504 | 527 || 127 | 87 | 23 | 44 | 26 | 57 | 22 | 32 | 11 | 8 | 8 | 23 | 7 | 2 | 65 | 542 |
| 22 | 528 | 551 || 173 | 130 | 47 | 73 | 12 | 27 | 32 | 23 | 16 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 0 | 3 | 37 | 590 |
| 23 | 552 | 575 || 92 | 43 | 175 | 40 | 16 | 5 | 23 | 17 | 79 | 16 | 14 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 50 | 585 |
| 24 | 576 | 599 || 106 | 32 | 158 | 69 | 27 | 9 | 24 | 31 | 77 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 13 | 48 | 604 |
| 25 | 600 | 623 || 39 | 27 | 162 | 84 | 101 | 55 | 26 | 21 | 4 | 3 | 38 | 11 | 2 | 3 | 64 | 640 |
| 26 | 624 | 647 || 84 | 54 | 119 | 84 | 88 | 59 | 29 | 20 | 3 | 2 | 24 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 64 | 639 |
| 27 | 648 | 671 || 167 | 68 | 79 | 58 | 14 | 72 | 16 | 15 | 5 | 2 | 16 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 53 | 579 |
| 28 | 672 | 695 || 34 | 52 | 37 | 25 | 74 | 110 | 27 | 92 | 9 | 6 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 46 | 527 |
| 29 | 696 | 719 || 28 | 86 | 95 | 41 | 67 | 100 | 27 | 66 | 6 | 19 | 27 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 54 | 625 |
| 30 | 720 | 743 || 52 | 34 | 73 | 98 | 114 | 96 | 28 | 13 | 14 | 12 | 4 | 17 | 3 | 1 | 57 | 616 |
| 31 | 744 | 767 || 71 | 48 | 239 | 54 | 79 | 3 | 5 | 19 | 11 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 54 | 596 |
| 32 | 768 | 791 || 38 | 46 | 239 | 67 | 81 | 10 | 6 | 13 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 54 | 589 |
| 33 | 792 | 815 || 144 | 56 | 210 | 61 | 18 | 10 | 15 | 25 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 26 | 583 |
| 34 | 816 | 839 || 163 | 30 | 117 | 20 | 47 | 9 | 15 | 53 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 37 | 514 |
| 35 | 840 | 863 || 56 | 11 | 154 | 30 | 75 | 69 | 14 | 52 | 9 | 37 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 36 | 568 |
| 36 | 864 | 887 || 45 | 79 | 17 | 124 | 111 | 107 | 11 | 19 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 16 | 20 | 1 | 40 | 617 |
| 37 | 888 | 911 || 7 | 33 | 174 | 116 | 109 | 12 | 1 | 36 | 17 | 11 | 19 | 16 | 0 | 1 | 56 | 608 |
| 38 | 912 | 935 || 16 | 16 | 137 | 137 | 101 | 1 | 8 | 44 | 15 | 1 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 61 | 558 |
| 39 | 936 | 959 || 36 | 68 | 128 | 130 | 111 | 10 | 10 | 26 | 15 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 58 | 608 |
| 40 | 960 | 983 || 22 | 89 | 18 | 65 | 82 | 27 | 65 | 59 | 8 | 17 | 69 | 4 | 15 | 1 | 37 | 578 |
| 41 | 984 | 1007 || 3 | 60 | 33 | 37 | 86 | 149 | 31 | 25 | 6 | 5 | 91 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 39 | 571 |
| 42 | 1008 | 1031 || 22 | 69 | 111 | 67 | 54 | 73 | 8 | 22 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 38 | 489 |
| 43 | 1032 | 1055 || 13 | 39 | 117 | 67 | 53 | 65 | 13 | 43 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 9 | 7 | 34 | 471 |
| 44 | 1056 | 1079 || 71 | 21 | 129 | 53 | 53 | 82 | 55 | 71 | 9 | 6 | 18 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 30 | 600 |
| 45 | 1080 | 1103 || 30 | 85 | 37 | 68 | 72 | 20 | 102 | 25 | 10 | 9 | 38 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 45 | 548 |
| 46 | 1104 | 1127 || 21 | 17 | 40 | 81 | 76 | 28 | 66 | 14 | 15 | 13 | 12 | 25 | 6 | 1 | 40 | 455 |
| 47 | 1128 | 1151 || 30 | 28 | 101 | 76 | 112 | 22 | 52 | 9 | 32 | 15 | 28 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 34 | 546 |
| 48 | 1152 | 1175 || 7 | 1 | 9 | 6 | 27 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 11 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 91 |
| 49 | 1176 | 1199 || 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Total || 2737 | 2638 | 4152 | 3543 | 2676 | 2998 | 1386 | 1680 | 655 | 691 | 802 | 632 | 322 | 313 | 2377 | 27602 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incs per day: alliance based on alliance planet was in at PT 1153 - i.e. the PA method
Code:
| Day | From | To || BF | p3n | Face | CT | RB | Ult | HR | ND | Norse | HODOR | Terra | ASC | COBRA | GBP | Other | Total |
|-----|------|------||-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
| 0 | 0 | 23 || 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 24 | 47 || 27 | 30 | 60 | 28 | 70 | 26 | 57 | 56 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 10 | 12 | 62 | 453 |
| 2 | 48 | 71 || 43 | 39 | 91 | 57 | 58 | 38 | 28 | 41 | 11 | 19 | 4 | 5 | 18 | 2 | 70 | 524 |
| 3 | 72 | 95 || 32 | 43 | 60 | 53 | 55 | 54 | 23 | 67 | 20 | 27 | 6 | 11 | 10 | 0 | 88 | 549 |
| 4 | 96 | 119 || 69 | 39 | 32 | 75 | 26 | 73 | 53 | 24 | 12 | 15 | 9 | 47 | 12 | 4 | 82 | 572 |
| 5 | 120 | 143 || 49 | 84 | 67 | 91 | 24 | 71 | 16 | 62 | 9 | 19 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 101 | 606 |
| 6 | 144 | 167 || 50 | 42 | 67 | 109 | 61 | 100 | 37 | 57 | 21 | 11 | 5 | 15 | 19 | 4 | 41 | 639 |
| 7 | 168 | 191 || 27 | 51 | 36 | 105 | 29 | 107 | 29 | 28 | 18 | 34 | 9 | 16 | 5 | 0 | 66 | 560 |
| 8 | 192 | 215 || 73 | 38 | 73 | 106 | 26 | 87 | 24 | 7 | 7 | 10 | 6 | 23 | 21 | 1 | 44 | 546 |
| 9 | 216 | 239 || 45 | 115 | 49 | 116 | 23 | 71 | 27 | 49 | 14 | 13 | 4 | 6 | 16 | 1 | 68 | 617 |
| 10 | 240 | 263 || 88 | 142 | 47 | 101 | 48 | 92 | 18 | 35 | 16 | 20 | 37 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 43 | 694 |
| 11 | 264 | 287 || 79 | 98 | 92 | 100 | 28 | 87 | 23 | 22 | 4 | 39 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 70 | 657 |
| 12 | 288 | 311 || 105 | 68 | 65 | 93 | 29 | 85 | 12 | 54 | 3 | 14 | 21 | 56 | 22 | 2 | 52 | 681 |
| 13 | 312 | 335 || 76 | 109 | 74 | 111 | 55 | 72 | 19 | 19 | 11 | 41 | 3 | 29 | 0 | 3 | 37 | 659 |
| 14 | 336 | 359 || 33 | 61 | 62 | 71 | 15 | 78 | 36 | 32 | 10 | 4 | 58 | 30 | 35 | 2 | 77 | 604 |
| 15 | 360 | 383 || 19 | 66 | 79 | 67 | 77 | 109 | 59 | 34 | 13 | 36 | 17 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 64 | 650 |
| 16 | 384 | 407 || 24 | 80 | 43 | 76 | 44 | 73 | 17 | 105 | 37 | 30 | 56 | 11 | 10 | 4 | 66 | 676 |
| 17 | 408 | 431 || 38 | 100 | 80 | 70 | 49 | 82 | 17 | 20 | 2 | 19 | 39 | 9 | 39 | 2 | 93 | 659 |
| 18 | 432 | 455 || 39 | 45 | 78 | 77 | 56 | 71 | 53 | 39 | 3 | 50 | 6 | 28 | 3 | 2 | 63 | 613 |
| 19 | 456 | 479 || 19 | 88 | 22 | 95 | 39 | 48 | 50 | 12 | 20 | 20 | 15 | 20 | 1 | 2 | 88 | 539 |
| 20 | 480 | 503 || 197 | 114 | 24 | 25 | 27 | 37 | 32 | 13 | 20 | 8 | 4 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 567 |
| 21 | 504 | 527 || 134 | 93 | 29 | 44 | 30 | 57 | 21 | 27 | 11 | 7 | 8 | 23 | 7 | 2 | 49 | 542 |
| 22 | 528 | 551 || 167 | 130 | 47 | 68 | 13 | 25 | 31 | 18 | 16 | 5 | 6 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 54 | 590 |
| 23 | 552 | 575 || 94 | 43 | 175 | 40 | 17 | 6 | 29 | 15 | 79 | 15 | 14 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 45 | 585 |
| 24 | 576 | 599 || 111 | 35 | 154 | 69 | 27 | 10 | 19 | 31 | 77 | 9 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 50 | 604 |
| 25 | 600 | 623 || 55 | 27 | 162 | 85 | 101 | 55 | 24 | 21 | 4 | 3 | 38 | 11 | 2 | 1 | 51 | 640 |
| 26 | 624 | 647 || 95 | 54 | 119 | 84 | 84 | 55 | 29 | 20 | 3 | 2 | 24 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 61 | 639 |
| 27 | 648 | 671 || 177 | 73 | 79 | 58 | 14 | 72 | 16 | 15 | 5 | 2 | 16 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 39 | 579 |
| 28 | 672 | 695 || 38 | 56 | 37 | 25 | 73 | 99 | 26 | 92 | 9 | 6 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 51 | 527 |
| 29 | 696 | 719 || 34 | 89 | 95 | 41 | 67 | 97 | 27 | 66 | 6 | 21 | 27 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 46 | 625 |
| 30 | 720 | 743 || 58 | 34 | 73 | 91 | 114 | 95 | 30 | 12 | 14 | 12 | 4 | 17 | 3 | 1 | 58 | 616 |
| 31 | 744 | 767 || 61 | 48 | 239 | 55 | 89 | 3 | 8 | 19 | 11 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 52 | 596 |
| 32 | 768 | 791 || 51 | 46 | 239 | 66 | 81 | 10 | 6 | 11 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 44 | 589 |
| 33 | 792 | 815 || 141 | 56 | 210 | 51 | 18 | 10 | 16 | 22 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 41 | 583 |
| 34 | 816 | 839 || 166 | 30 | 117 | 20 | 47 | 11 | 15 | 53 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 31 | 514 |
| 35 | 840 | 863 || 56 | 11 | 154 | 30 | 75 | 67 | 17 | 52 | 9 | 37 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 35 | 568 |
| 36 | 864 | 887 || 52 | 79 | 17 | 122 | 113 | 104 | 11 | 19 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 16 | 20 | 1 | 38 | 617 |
| 37 | 888 | 911 || 7 | 39 | 174 | 113 | 117 | 12 | 1 | 36 | 17 | 11 | 19 | 16 | 0 | 1 | 45 | 608 |
| 38 | 912 | 935 || 26 | 16 | 137 | 136 | 111 | 1 | 9 | 44 | 15 | 1 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 41 | 558 |
| 39 | 936 | 959 || 36 | 68 | 128 | 127 | 115 | 10 | 10 | 26 | 15 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 57 | 608 |
| 40 | 960 | 983 || 22 | 89 | 18 | 61 | 83 | 27 | 71 | 59 | 8 | 17 | 69 | 4 | 15 | 1 | 34 | 578 |
| 41 | 984 | 1007 || 3 | 60 | 33 | 37 | 87 | 148 | 31 | 25 | 6 | 7 | 91 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 37 | 571 |
| 42 | 1008 | 1031 || 27 | 69 | 111 | 67 | 54 | 72 | 8 | 22 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 34 | 489 |
| 43 | 1032 | 1055 || 13 | 39 | 117 | 67 | 53 | 65 | 17 | 43 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 9 | 6 | 31 | 471 |
| 44 | 1056 | 1079 || 71 | 21 | 129 | 53 | 53 | 82 | 55 | 71 | 9 | 6 | 18 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 30 | 600 |
| 45 | 1080 | 1103 || 30 | 85 | 37 | 68 | 72 | 20 | 104 | 25 | 10 | 9 | 38 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 43 | 548 |
| 46 | 1104 | 1127 || 21 | 17 | 40 | 81 | 76 | 28 | 67 | 14 | 15 | 13 | 12 | 25 | 6 | 1 | 39 | 455 |
| 47 | 1128 | 1151 || 30 | 28 | 101 | 76 | 112 | 22 | 52 | 9 | 32 | 15 | 28 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 34 | 546 |
| 48 | 1152 | 1175 || 7 | 1 | 11 | 9 | 28 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 11 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 101 |
| 49 | 1176 | 1199 || 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Total || 2915 | 2888 | 4183 | 3470 | 2763 | 2726 | 1389 | 1645 | 668 | 671 | 808 | 539 | 344 | 100 | 2503 | 27612 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 22:15
|
#63
|
Sain†s
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bram
I suggest you read the first lines of my post and check the first part of stats.
PA stats are not really correct in my opinion..
For alliance Black Flag it counts all the incoming of planets that were in Black Flag at PT 1153.
If a planet played outside of tag till PT 1151 and then joined tag at PT 1152 then it would count all its incs as 'Black Flag' incs; which is not correct IMO.
|
I did read that, and considering we experienced our heaviest incs early on, and then a few people left for other tags, I'd expect this to cause our incs to be under-reported by the game rather than over-reported. For instance, rushed's incs wouldn't be counted towards our total at all, but rather FL's, even though he was involved in the initial wars with p3ng and FL.
Ragequitting to join the people that roid you is a funny one, though!
__________________
☠ | ROCK | BowS | Sain†s
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 22:46
|
#64
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 245
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
I did read that, and considering we experienced our heaviest incs early on, and then a few people left for other tags, I'd expect this to cause our incs to be under-reported by the game rather than over-reported. For instance, rushed's incs wouldn't be counted towards our total at all, but rather FL's, even though he was involved in the initial wars with p3ng and FL.
Ragequitting to join the people that roid you is a funny one, though!
|
Ok, time to count I guess..
BF members that changed: - Planet 6:7:8 joined at PT 89: 1 inc before joining, 44 after
- Planet 1:3:9 joined at PT 93: 2 incs before joining, 103 after
- Planet 1:7:8 joined at PT 93: 0 incs before joining, 24 after
- Planet 5:7:2 joined at PT 94: 0 before, 14 after
- Planet 2:5:8 joined at PT 94: 0 before, 23 after
- Planet 4:6:2 joined at PT 97 and left at PT 379: PT 0-96: 0 incs, PT 97 - PT 379: 5 incs, PT 379-1153: 16 incs
- Planet 6:3:8(*) deleted/resetted at PT 111: 2 incs before
- Planet 2:5:9 joined at PT 113: 0 before, 11 after
- Planet 7:8:3(*) deleted/resetted at PT 116: 4 incs before
- Planet 1:9:9 joined at PT 122: 0 before, 23 after
- Planet 1:10:10 joined at PT 229: 8 before, 9 after
- Planet 4:6:1 left at PT 377: 3 before, 11 after
- Planet 3:8:2 joined at PT 422: 44 before, 67 after
- Planet 4:8:8 joined at PT 422: 41 before, 40 after
- Planet 5:10:9 left at PT 790: 38 before, 0 after
- Planet 5:7:3 joined at PT 812: 94 before, 44 after
- Planet 3:9:10 joined at PT 1031: 55 before, 12 after
- Planet 2:5:8 left at PT 1031: 23 before, 0 after
(*): not the current coordinates
Summary:- under-reporting::
- 5 incs on 4:6:2
- 2 incs on 6:3:8(*)
- 4 incs on 7:8:3(*)
- 3 incs on 4:6:1
- 38 incs on 5:10:9
- 23 incs on 2:5:8
- over-reporting:
- 1 inc on 6:7:8
- 2 incs on 1:3:9
- 8 incs on 1:10:10
- 44 incs on 3:8:2
- 41 incs on 4:8:8
- 94 incs on 5:7:3
- 55 incs on 3:9:10
Total: - under-reported: 75 incs
- over-reported: 245 incs
Final summary: over reporting of 170 fleets in PA stats.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 22:48
|
#65
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
What I find amusing is that your stats are from a third party source, which means while you feel your stats are accurate, it doesn't make it factual.
A Planetarion player, which is not part of the PA Team in any form, coded this tool. Your tools may or may not be accurate, but if we are to look at this from a logical point of view, we are taking the word from one person outside of the official Planetarion Team circle and not using data directly from official Planetarion elements such as dumps, rather you're scanning the universe. This means your stats can't be used as accurate data in this debate.
Your tools are helpful, but please don't assume you can use them to prove an argument when they aren't sourced from official elements.
Last edited by Clouds; 1 Oct 2015 at 23:02.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 22:53
|
#66
|
Sain†s
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
I'll accept that. I also stand by my assertion that the game did report 210 fleets at the tick the screenshot was taken, and frequently reported more than you suggest. Mind you, I reported incorrect fleet numbers two or three rounds ago, and as far as I know, cin fixed it.
Well, probably fixed it.
Who am I kidding? This is PA.
__________________
☠ | ROCK | BowS | Sain†s
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 22:57
|
#67
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 245
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
What I find amusing is that your stats are from a third party source, which means while you feel your stats are accurate, it doesn't make it factual.
|
I still got all the N scans done on Black Flag at PT 700.
You want them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
A Planetarion player, which is not part of the PA Team in any form, coded this tool. Your tools may or may not be accurate, but if we are to look at this from a logical point of view, we are taking the word from one person outside of the official Planetarion Team circle, which means your stats can't be used as accurate data in this debate.
|
While that is true and it is your good right to think of my stats as not accurate and not trust-worthy.
What I do know is that Black Flag in the past has frequently over-stated their inc counts. Time and time again this has been shown by N scanning Black Flag during the round.
What numbers you choose to believe is your own choiche. I however do know the stats I made based on data provided by PA are accurate. Does that mean a thing for someone else? Nope; not at all.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 23:04
|
#68
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
What ever is right or wrong, Clouds claim that they had between 2600-2800 incs on 16 days seems to be a little off, since 25% of the total BF incs came on days where they had less than 50 fleets.
27 days with below 50 incs, 750ish fleets in total.
8 days with 120 incs, 950ish fleets in total.
8 days with 200 incs, 1600ish fleets in total.
5 days with 51-119 incs, -400ish fleets in total.
That adds up to 2900ish fleets over a whole round, based on the PA method of counting and the Clouds method of counting.
Seems about right.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 23:12
|
#69
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
I didn't say we experienced over 200 fleets everytime, I said that we experienced this on some occasions. You're just twisting my words.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 23:19
|
#70
|
Sain†s
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Things we've learned today:
- Everyone got incs!
- Some people got more than others
- PA Team can't count
- PA Team can't code
- Bram claims he can count, but we only have Bram's word for this
- HR have no ally fund left
- BB doesn't get along with people, or penguins
__________________
☠ | ROCK | BowS | Sain†s
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 23:28
|
#71
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 245
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
not using data directly from official Planetarion elements such as dumps, rather you're scanning the universe. This means your stats can't be used as accurate data in this debate.
|
(Oh changing your post after I already quoted it and replied to it.. - how nice of you)
Anyway, your new edit is a fail.
My very first sentence:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bram
The following is based on data about fleet launches provided by the PA team.
|
Let me repeat myself again:
The raw data based on which the 'inc-breakdown' is created was provided by the PA team.
The raw data based on which the 'number of incs per day' is created was provided by the PA team.
And once more: the raw data based on which all this was created was not obtained by scanning the universe
Did we constantly N scan the universe? No we did not.
Our scanners did news scan the universe the last 8-9 days tho;
What we did do during the round was occasianlly news scan some alliances..
News scans on Black Flag were done on several ocassions for several reasons: - seeing how much incs they really had (since their claims have proven not to be trustworthy in the past);
- seeing who Black Flag was hitting and with how many fleets/waves.
When we were hitting Faceless and/or p3nguins we also did a news scans them. This to see how many fleets actually launched and by who (and seeing how this corresponded with the targets that were claimed).
Does any of this matter? Nope since that data was NOT used in my first posts.
That data was only used later as an additional source to also show the inc count was 150 and not 210 as shown in the screenshot.
Why it shows 210 in the screenshot is something I can not answer. Bug in PA? Photsohop?
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 23:31
|
#72
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 245
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
Things we've learned today:
- Bram claims he can count, but we only have Bram's word for this
|
You don't have to take my word for it..
As I said: we still got the News scans done on Black Flag at PT 700.
If you want you can go count yourself how many fleets there were with landing tick between PT 660 and 667.
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 23:32
|
#73
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
I didn't say we experienced over 200 fleets everytime, I said that we experienced this on some occasions. You're just twisting my words.
|
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.
|
I know my English lets me down a little bit too often.
The first two period you experinced 200-220 fleets A night.
The last two periods it died down to 120-150 fleets, assuming your still talking about " A night".
If im to understand what you are trying to say(that shouldnt be a goal for you) id rather see you writing something like you had X-220 fleets and X-150 fleets a night.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
1 Oct 2015, 23:37
|
#74
|
Sain†s
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
So your raw data was provided by the PA Team, and we know that they can't count, and we also know that the game's fleet total reporting is buggy at best... so you're doing analysis on second-hand data from a known low-quality source.
I just don't see the point in this conversation anymore. Maybe you can help PA Team fix their code? Someone needs to, since it's apparently still got issues counting fleets.
__________________
☠ | ROCK | BowS | Sain†s
|
|
|
2 Oct 2015, 00:10
|
#75
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
I'm not even sure how this incoming stats argument started. I stupidly got involved and stated that we received over 200 fleets one night, and elaborated and said that we received in this region repetitively, which I was wrong to say as it wasn't accurate. What is accurate though is at least on one occasion, we did receive over 200 fleets as shown by the screenshot. If this isn't the case due to a bug within the game, then that isn't my fault.
Whether we received lots of incoming or not is irrelevant. Why do people get so hung up on incoming stats? The end result is all that matters. People caring about incoming stats just wants to flaunt their e-penis or discredit someone's win.
We're not Ultores and I'm not pretending to be. I provided the screenshot to show that I wasn't lying or exaggerating.
If you want to continue being toxic and arguing over something that really isn't relevant, then you will do so by yourself because I won't lower myself to your level anymore.
I don't like to attack Rainbows on here because I have the greatest respect for Green_Cat & Cr0, but if you put half as much energy into your own alliance than you do trolling the forums, then maybe Rainbows could be in a position to compete. You can afford to act like an idiot because you simply don't care about your own alliance.
I can make myself look like an idiot, but I can at least say that I've achieved alliance win twice, you on the other hand just antagonise people with no regard for your actions what-so-ever, which tends to blow back on to your comrades.
When I spoke to cr0 earlier in the round, he told me that he had stepped down and quit because of your actions with p3nguins, and you continued down this path without any regard for him or your co-HCs. All you cared about was your personal goals. This is what you do most rounds, and it's beyond me why the Rainbows High Command lets you within a command position round after round.
Contrary to popular belief, Rainbows is actually a formidable alliance, but they just lack the proper leadership and organisation. B-Bitch3r doesn't care about his alliance, if he did then he wouldn't have done half the things that isolated them in wars that they just couldn't win. I don't like to personally attack people, but they remov BB from the alliance, they would have a good chance at competing and even winning.
The Rainbows HC can either take my advice and remove BB and repair their alliance and maybe compete one day, or they can keep the trolling-idiot and continue failing. With the right leadership, Rainbows could end up competing and taking on multiple alliances at once, but I suppose they'll keep the troll in charge and continue losing 1v1 wars.
You can attack my profile all your want, but I get the job done. I can't say the same about you.
Last edited by Clouds; 2 Oct 2015 at 00:23.
|
|
|
2 Oct 2015, 01:09
|
#76
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
I'm not even sure how this incoming stats argument started. I stupidly got involved and stated that we received over 200 fleets one night, and elaborated and said that we received in this region repetitively, which I was wrong to say as it wasn't accurate. What is accurate though is at least on one occasion, we did receive over 200 fleets as shown by the screenshot. If this isn't the case due to a bug within the game, then that isn't my fault.
Whether we received lots of incoming or not is irrelevant. Why do people get so hung up on incoming stats? The end result is all that matters. People caring about incoming stats just wants to flaunt their e-penis or discredit someone's win.
We're not Ultores and I'm not pretending to be. I provided the screenshot to show that I wasn't lying or exaggerating.
If you want to continue being toxic and arguing over something that really isn't relevant, then you will do so by yourself because I won't lower myself to your level anymore.
I don't like to attack Rainbows on here because I have the greatest respect for Green_Cat & Cr0, but if you put half as much energy into your own alliance than you do trolling the forums, then maybe Rainbows could be in a position to compete. You can afford to act like an idiot because you simply don't care about your own alliance.
I can make myself look like an idiot, but I can at least say that I've achieved alliance win twice, you on the other hand just antagonise people with no regard for your actions what-so-ever, which tends to blow back on to your comrades.
When I spoke to cr0 earlier in the round, he told me that he had stepped down and quit because of your actions with p3nguins, and you continued down this path without any regard for him or your co-HCs. All you cared about was your personal goals. This is what you do most rounds, and it's beyond me why the Rainbows High Command lets you within a command position round after round.
Contrary to popular belief, Rainbows is actually a formidable alliance, but they just lack the proper leadership and organisation. B-Bitch3r doesn't care about his alliance, if he did then he wouldn't have done half the things that isolated them in wars that they just couldn't win. I don't like to personally attack people, but they remov BB from the alliance, they would have a good chance at competing and even winning.
The Rainbows HC can either take my advice and remove BB and repair their alliance and maybe compete one day, or they can keep the trolling-idiot and continue failing. With the right leadership, Rainbows could end up competing and taking on multiple alliances at once, but I suppose they'll keep the troll in charge and continue losing 1v1 wars.
You can attack my profile all your want, but I get the job done. I can't say the same about you.
|
BowS try to stay away from dealing with other alliances on a personal level.
Our politics will always be run in the direction we belive is best, and based on previous experince in our dealings with other allies.
How you aim to run your alliance is up to you, either way you most likely will do what ever it takes to achieve top3 planets or top1 tag. What you justify it with is a totaly diffrent subject.
You tend to get yourself stuck into discussions and positions where its hard for objective viewer to belive you are saying anything true at all. This "inc number" discussion is a prime example.
Stating something in here wich perhaps could be proved false is foolishly, atleast try do it with some more grace. I think people love to prove you wrong.
Atleast you are baiting me into trying to prove you are wrong if i dont get your numbers to add up to the public ones.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
2 Oct 2015, 01:22
|
#77
|
Sain†s
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Shhhhh BB... we've already worked out that all the inc stats numbers are provably wrong. It's okay.
__________________
☠ | ROCK | BowS | Sain†s
|
|
|
2 Oct 2015, 06:50
|
#78
|
Dictator
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 634
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Bows politics involves you napping 8 of the top 10 at tick start or having fort avoidance which renders you unable to do anything but target specific alliances in gal raids.
You then play all innocent stating the game is too small and people need to realise this. You cause that problem for yourself!
When there is any hint that a none napped alliance is going to get inc you jump right onto them knowing it helps you out with your target situation as you have run out of galaxies to hit and members want to do something. These alliances then hit you back once the wars are over and you try and play all innocent.. once again due to you napping everyone and claiming the universe is too small.
Its so predictable and it fails you every round.
|
|
|
2 Oct 2015, 09:36
|
#79
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munkee
Bows politics involves you napping 8 of the top 10 at tick start or having fort avoidance which renders you unable to do anything but target specific alliances in gal raids.
You then play all innocent stating the game is too small and people need to realise this. You cause that problem for yourself!
When there is any hint that a none napped alliance is going to get inc you jump right onto them knowing it helps you out with your target situation as you have run out of galaxies to hit and members want to do something. These alliances then hit you back once the wars are over and you try and play all innocent.. once again due to you napping everyone and claiming the universe is too small.
Its so predictable and it fails you every round.
|
We have enough incs as it is without the fort avoidances, and we only NAPed ult in tge start
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
2 Oct 2015, 11:58
|
#80
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
- Some people got more than others
|
*gasp*
__________________
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.
|
|
|
2 Oct 2015, 21:15
|
#81
|
Retard0r
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,164
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
We have enough incs as it is without the fort avoidances, and we only NAPed ult in tge start
|
I am happy to confirm that we made a deal with bows early on!
__________________
-Chimpie
* We do not exist *
* G-II * NoS * VsN * Ascendancy * Osiris * xVx * Ultores *
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 03:54
|
#82
|
Anti-Paperboy
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 174
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Tldr
BB you're a whiney little girl
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 09:15
|
#83
|
DC overlord
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 10
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
I don't talk a lot usually, but since I'm the one dealing with the hostiles fleets I feel this little p3ng/Bows 'war' was more a stalemate then anything else.
I remember seeing days @ +1000 roids for us and then others at -1000.
DC'ing vs DE incs with 4M vipers at my disposal was kinda easy, I don't remember marking a lot of 'uncovered'
It's when i started to see the daily 50 ND fleets popping up that shit hit the fan.
P.S. I also get the job done!
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 09:36
|
#84
|
Dictator
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 634
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
The majority of bows gains were from adding in members with higher roid counts than those who quit. However there were times we weren't so worried about roid loss when you were crashing so much on us in attack it became more profitable to allow 400 roid loss for a swing of 2 mill value.
Overall I think the fighting was not pointless from our perspective I told cr0 we would hit you if you continued to give us inc whilst we were at war with bf and you guys didn't back off. Supporting nd became a priority for us after it became apparent you were just going to target them as soon as we left you alone.
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 10:28
|
#85
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munkee
The majority of bows gains were from adding in members with higher roid counts than those who quit..
|
Nice theory there lol
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 14:24
|
#86
|
Dictator
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 634
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Nice attempt of proving me wrong. - There had to be some bonus/init'n going on also as your guys were gettin 300-400 roids at night and it wasn't from us or ND.
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 14:41
|
#87
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munkee
Nice attempt of proving me wrong. - There had to be some bonus/init'n going on also as your guys were gettin 300-400 roids at night and it wasn't from us or ND.
|
I dont need to prove you wrong, you have provided no evidence to your theory.
All i know that p3nguins only covered 52% of their incommings, i guess that you mustve covered 99% of the fleets we sent at you if bows was only getting below 300 roids a night from p3nguins.
It sounds like you attended the same math class as Clouds.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 14:53
|
#88
|
NE
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 828
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
I dont need to prove you wrong, you have provided no evidence to your theory.
All i know that p3nguins only covered 52% of their incommings, i guess that you mustve covered 99% of the fleets we sent at you if bows was only getting below 300 roids a night from p3nguins.
It sounds like you attended the same math class as Clouds.
|
The hypocrisy!
Everything you post is loaded with ambiguity; over-arching generic statements. Maybe one in ten of your posts adds any sort of value. You challenge everything, all of the time, it's exhausting.
__________________
PEACE.
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 15:12
|
#89
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veil05
The hypocrisy!
Everything you post is loaded with ambiguity; over-arching generic statements. Maybe one in ten of your posts adds any sort of value. You challenge everything, all of the time, it's exhausting.
|
Well i remember us roiding animaru from top50 roids to below top600 roids over 2-3 days because he yet again this round kept sending 3 fleets at us 3 times each day. That alone was 400 roids aday.
Clouds saying they had 200+ incs that hardly was landing them 8 times during the round, and Munkee claiming we wernt landing them has nothing to do with what was the reality
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 16:13
|
#90
|
Dictator
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 634
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Butcher what the **** are you talking about? Where did I say you didnt land us? Infact I even said we let you land some to kill your value. Your brain is hilarious.
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 16:29
|
#91
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munkee
Butcher what the **** are you talking about? Where did I say you didnt land us? Infact I even said we let you land some to kill your value. Your brain is hilarious.
|
Landing, but not getting roids?
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 19:30
|
#92
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Clouds saying they had 200+ incs that hardly was landing them 8 times during the round, and Munkee claiming we wernt landing them has nothing to do with what was the reality
|
At least on one occasion we did have over 200 fleets incoming, and please stop acting like an idiot when I have already admitted that I was wrong to exaggerate.
p3nguins is quite a formidable alliance. They have better fleet strats, more experienced players and better politics, and not to mention they've won twice. You act all high and mighty but it's your colleagues that does all the work in Rainbows while you sit on the forums antagonising people. As I have said before, remove Butch3r and Rainbows will achieve results.
Last edited by Clouds; 3 Oct 2015 at 19:45.
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 19:58
|
#93
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
At least on one occasion we did have over 200 fleets incoming, and please stop acting like an idiot when I have already admitted that I was wrong to exaggerate.
|
I thought we had it confirmed that your screenshot was either photoshoped or that it is a bug in how fleets are counted in BFs incomming overview?
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 20:06
|
#94
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Had it confirmed? What, you mean 'Bram'? That's not confirmation pal. His 'stats' isn't a trustworthy source, but of course you will use his data as fact as you are biased in this debate.
For the sake of my sanity, I'm not going to engage in another pointless argument about incoming, so please stop going on about it because no-one cares.
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 20:09
|
#95
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 245
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
Had it confirmed? What you mean Bram? That's not confirmation pal. His 'stats' isn't a trustworthy source, but of course you will use his data as fact as you are biased in this debate.
|
I guess news scans on BF which contains the time you claimed 200+ incs are not trustworthy either!
Neither is the data provided by PA team.
Anyone that wants to count for themselfs just PM me and I'll provide links to the scans.
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 20:13
|
#96
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bram
I guess news scans on BF which contains the time you claimed 200+ incs are not trustworthy either!
Neither is the data provided by PA team.
Anyone that wants to count for themselfs just PM me and I'll provide links to the scans.
|
You haven't provided these news scans, you just provided a bunch of numbers and making it fact. Any anyway, I DON'T CARE.
Let's clarify a few things so we can end these pointless arguments.
-Butch3r is the forum god.
-Bram's stats are always factual
-Black Flag is scum.
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 20:17
|
#97
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 245
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
We're just taking your word on this. You haven't provided any actual data.
|
Do I need to AGAIN offer the data? For the third time now?
I'll repeat myself once more: You do NOT need to take my word on this. I can provide the scan links to all the News scan done on Black Flag at PT 700.
And since the message appears to get lost I'll say it once more:
You do NOT need to take my word on this. I can provide the scan links to all the News scan done on Black Flag at PT 700.
And once more:
You do NOT need to take my word on this. I can provide the scan links to all the News scan done on Black Flag at PT 700.
Someone wants to check my data? You're more then welcome to do so! Send me a PM and you'll get a PM back with the link to the News scans!
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 20:18
|
#98
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 245
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
You haven't provided these news scans, you just provided 'data' and making it fact. Any anyway, I DON'T CARE. Bram and Butch3r have bigger e-penises than me. Argument over.
|
(And again modifying post after it was already replied too - how nice of you.)
Someone want the scans? No problem: PM ME.
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 20:20
|
#99
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
You haven't provided these news scans, you just provided 'data' and making it fact. Any anyway, I DON'T CARE. Bram and Butch3r have bigger e-penises than me. Argument over.
|
Well as all evidence suggest thats been provided so far, there is a bug in Black-Flags incomming counter. Im sure the incomming counter mustve been biased towards BF aswell if this proves to be the truth.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
3 Oct 2015, 20:35
|
#100
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: Inc stats discussion pos R63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bram
Do I need to AGAIN offer the data? For the third time now?
I'll repeat myself once more: You do NOT need to take my word on this. I can provide the scan links to all the News scan done on Black Flag at PT 700.
And since the message appears to get lost I'll say it once more:
You do NOT need to take my word on this. I can provide the scan links to all the News scan done on Black Flag at P700.
|
I'm sure you're able to prove that this screenshot was taken post tick 700, or are we supposed to take your word on that too?
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:03.
| |