|
3 Mar 2012, 01:37
|
#1
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
|
Alliance fleet statistics
Someone requested a breakdown of alliance attack statistics.
This is a rough breakdown. I *think* the numbers are pretty accurate; exceptions below
Code:
+---------------+------+---------------+----------+---------+
| name | incs | incs_recalled | ally_def | gal_def |
+---------------+------+---------------+----------+---------+
| Apprime | 125 | 40 | 76 | 53 |
| Conspiracy | 2741 | 940 | 2962 | 673 |
| DFWTK | 1528 | 578 | 1796 | 454 |
| DLR | 846 | 241 | 428 | 352 |
| FAnG | 3050 | 1381 | 3438 | 606 |
| Howling Rain | 2020 | 652 | 1533 | 829 |
| NewDawn | 2726 | 917 | 2775 | 670 |
| NGO | 1185 | 365 | 642 | 491 |
| PATSA | 187 | 54 | 0 | 139 |
| Tides of Fire | 1528 | 562 | 1429 | 450 |
| Ultores | 5041 | 1445 | 4347 | 1326 |
| Usi | 517 | 53 | 86 | 120 |
| xVx | 2714 | 826 | 2486 | 706 |
+---------------+------+---------------+----------+---------+
Note that this is run on end-of-round alliance statistics, so:
if someone left the alliance, it ignores them
if someone joined the alliance near the end of the round, it counts all their incs, not just the ones since they joined the alliance
all in-gal defence from alliance planets is counted as in-gal def not alliance def
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 01:55
|
#2
|
Don't make me declare war
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 2,913
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
Looks like Ult had best gal tactics pre-round and that is what won it for them
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 02:12
|
#3
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
The number of incs Ultores got makes any comparison with the rest of the top 5 pointless.
The tag that really stands out here is FAnG, which had lots of ally defense fleets (1.12 fleets per inc) and the highest coverage rate of all the alliances (45%). Tags with a similar number of incomings did not do nearly as well: CT covered 34% of their incs with 1.08 def fleets per inc, xVx covered 30% with 0.91 def fleets per inc, and ND covered 33% with 1.02 def fleets per inc.
The lesson for roid whores is this: attack whoever is under attack. Failing that, hit anything other than FAnG.
__________________
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; 3 Mar 2012 at 02:27.
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 03:26
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest
Looks like Ult had best gal tactics pre-round and that is what won it for them
|
I'm highly curious as to how you drew that conclusion.
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 10:59
|
#5
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
If I have time I might try and split the alliance in-gal def from non-alliance in-gal def (i.e. Ult may just have had more people per buddy pack)
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 11:10
|
#6
|
Don't make me declare war
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 2,913
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrikc
I'm highly curious as to how you drew that conclusion.
|
Because with considerably more def fleets available ingal, whether Ult or xVx or any other, that frees more fleets up for longer with them to attack and defend with.
That is a considerable amount to make a huge difference
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 11:20
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 24
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
This might be a good time to explain Ult's ship strategy, incase it has any bearing on these discussions
We had 4 fort gals, initially 5-map BPs that grew to 6,6,8,8 with late signs/exiles. These planets were almost all zik/ter/cath/etd cr/bs, with fi/co ships for def.
The rest of the alliance (so about 2/3) were either fenced or random, and playing a fi/co strategy with fr/de class def ships. We did have a few random cr/bs planets as well.
In terms of ingal def, this meant that for the majority of the round, we could only get it from xvx and ND, and then at the end when the entire block was hitting us, we could only get it from ND. So I suspect the majority of those ingal def fleets WERE from ult planets, mainly in the fort gals.
Just incase anyone cared
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 14:10
|
#8
|
So what?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 606
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
I'm slightly confused by the incs recalled stat. I'm fairly sure more than 28% of fleets recalled from us, for example. I know the tracking sites aren't 100% correct on things like roids lost but that would mean an average fleet landing on Ultores capped around 8 roids. We definitely didn't have that many huge teamups on us.
__________________
Legion
[RaH] [Mercenaries]
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 16:04
|
#9
|
Old Skool
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 278
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
The table tells me that DLR either had a brilliant run on politics, or that the DE setup idd gave them so much leeway that noone wanted to go there iot to hadle the ingal def.
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 16:46
|
#10
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
It's more likely that no one cared to hit them because what's the point?
__________________
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.
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 18:42
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shev
I'm slightly confused by the incs recalled stat. I'm fairly sure more than 28% of fleets recalled from us, for example. I know the tracking sites aren't 100% correct on things like roids lost but that would mean an average fleet landing on Ultores capped around 8 roids. We definitely didn't have that many huge teamups on us.
|
Yeah, it doesn't look right - there's no way more than 2/3 of attacks landed on us...
|
|
|
3 Mar 2012, 23:23
|
#12
|
Shinigami
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: England
Posts: 32
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xyphistor
Yeah, it doesn't look right - there's no way more than 2/3 of attacks landed on us...
|
Dont forget though that you cant really get an accurate level of coverage from these stats due to the fact that a hell of a lot of waves we're covered and the attackers just 'crashed' into our defence.
__________________
Played rnd 1 - 10, 12 - 15 and 21 - 23*
|
|
|
5 Mar 2012, 00:44
|
#13
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 28
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
Ultores PWNED!!!
__________________
Winners never quit, Quitters never win and those who never win and never quit are just idiots.
|
|
|
16 Mar 2012, 09:22
|
#14
|
Bad Girl
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: right here..right now
Posts: 1,055
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
What i find most interesting ... as sub top 5 alliance we only had 700 less incommings than CT, ND and XvX !!!!
points to some serious bottom feeding last round
__________________
R1 - noob
R2,3,4, - ICD | R5 -ICD HC |R6 - HR Command | R7 - HR Command/NoS
R8,9,9.5,- HR HC /NoS Exec | R10 - HR HC | R10.5 - HR HC (FYTFO with LCH)
R11 -> NOW HR HC
(a round history not condusive to suceeding in exams, having a life or much sleep )
I'm not misunderstood ... I'm EVIL
|
|
|
16 Mar 2012, 09:49
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,143
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistwraith
What i find most interesting ... as sub top 5 alliance we only had 700 less incommings than CT, ND and XvX !!!!
points to some serious bottom feeding last round
|
Considering that Ultores was pretty much the only alliance getting incs in the second half of the round, it's not surprising that their inc count is that low
|
|
|
12 May 2012, 14:53
|
#16
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
Redoing the original post (round 45) with new (better) code etc... may have made a difference?
Code:
+----------------------+---------+------------+------------+-----------+-----------+------------+---------------+----------+---------+
| name | members | real_score | real_value | real_incs | fake_incs | total_incs | incs_recalled | ally_def | gal_def |
+----------------------+---------+------------+------------+-----------+-----------+------------+---------------+----------+---------+
| 12345 | 1 | 718836 | 679416 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| ACDC | 1 | 3428434 | 2802694 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 11 | 2 | 7 |
| Agent Orange | 1 | 2678120 | 2356880 | 40 | 0 | 40 | 3 | 0 | 4 |
| All4me | 1 | 1319911 | 1213471 | 30 | 0 | 30 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| AoB | 2 | 6278537 | 5358317 | 103 | 0 | 103 | 21 | 3 | 17 |
| Apprime | 3 | 12439968 | 10819728 | 126 | 0 | 126 | 71 | 77 | 55 |
| ARSENDANCY | 1 | 3423049 | 2620849 | 58 | 0 | 58 | 21 | 0 | 32 |
| Balls luck chocolate | 1 | 989895 | 686955 | 59 | 2 | 61 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
| cobra | 1 | 4578687 | 4124007 | 38 | 0 | 38 | 18 | 0 | 21 |
| Conspiracy | 79 | 358745073 | 303534333 | 2816 | 19 | 2835 | 2038 | 2971 | 699 |
| Damage Inc | 4 | 6520532 | 5004752 | 172 | 0 | 172 | 56 | 0 | 76 |
| Death Destruction | 2 | 3680282 | 3035042 | 43 | 0 | 43 | 15 | 3 | 19 |
| DFWTK | 41 | 156265876 | 130460776 | 1568 | 13 | 1581 | 1021 | 1862 | 474 |
| DK | 2 | 6113723 | 5227643 | 98 | 1 | 99 | 43 | 0 | 65 |
| DLR | 35 | 179593366 | 160555306 | 854 | 1 | 855 | 618 | 428 | 356 |
| DoppleGangers | 1 | 502727 | 201287 | 48 | 4 | 52 | 5 | 0 | 6 |
| FAnG | 69 | 419132333 | 364219733 | 3186 | 26 | 3212 | 2568 | 3475 | 637 |
| for the XP | 2 | 1760974 | 1447954 | 36 | 0 | 36 | 7 | 0 | 3 |
| Howling Rain | 60 | 178537389 | 144529869 | 2082 | 14 | 2096 | 1105 | 1553 | 867 |
| IRONFIST | 1 | 1681864 | 1357444 | 30 | 2 | 32 | 17 | 0 | 26 |
| Kees | 1 | 1394659 | 1203079 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| LEGION | 2 | 1446548 | 1337228 | 49 | 0 | 49 | 20 | 0 | 26 |
| Lousiest ally around | 1 | 4872196 | 4676056 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Magma | 1 | 2703612 | 2527152 | 34 | 0 | 34 | 16 | 34 | 4 |
| NewDawn | 70 | 281778984 | 236209344 | 2843 | 25 | 2868 | 1956 | 2821 | 720 |
| NGO | 39 | 83666412 | 64045392 | 1196 | 14 | 1210 | 560 | 694 | 540 |
| Ostrich | 3 | 7680951 | 6280431 | 109 | 0 | 109 | 31 | 8 | 21 |
| PATSA | 8 | 21476136 | 19877256 | 190 | 1 | 191 | 103 | 0 | 141 |
| ROCK | 1 | 1192447 | 1155127 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| S.P.Q.R. | 2 | 3936649 | 2943049 | 57 | 0 | 57 | 21 | 0 | 53 |
| Shichibukai | 1 | 548758 | 409318 | 13 | 0 | 13 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| THA | 1 | 2581379 | 2071319 | 18 | 0 | 18 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| The Ice TokRa | 1 | 6341871 | 6045231 | 21 | 0 | 21 | 12 | 0 | 24 |
| Tides of Fire | 45 | 219637461 | 196752381 | 1574 | 10 | 1584 | 1162 | 1441 | 478 |
| Ultores | 73 | 457049921 | 398250461 | 5159 | 68 | 5227 | 4357 | 4353 | 1353 |
| undertow | 1 | 3428603 | 3117743 | 23 | 0 | 23 | 2 | 0 | 7 |
| Usi | 23 | 32053174 | 24944494 | 526 | 4 | 530 | 151 | 117 | 128 |
| xVx | 79 | 391024984 | 340930444 | 2783 | 16 | 2799 | 2022 | 2511 | 728 |
| xVx.bg | 2 | 9269632 | 9081772 | 13 | 0 | 13 | 4 | 2 | 10 |
+----------------------+---------+------------+------------+-----------+-----------+------------+---------------+----------+---------+
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
Last edited by Appocomaster; 12 May 2012 at 16:10.
|
|
|
12 May 2012, 16:49
|
#17
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
You left out TGV!
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
12 May 2012, 17:39
|
#18
|
Finally retired
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kargool
You left out TGV!
|
TGV didn't play r45!
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]
In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
|
|
|
12 May 2012, 17:39
|
#19
|
Mercenary
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Todmorden
Posts: 1,192
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
So FAnG only had 160 more incs than last rd? I expected more with all the whining going on.....
__________________
FAnG
Ascendancy
Apprime
Ultores
|
|
|
12 May 2012, 17:43
|
#20
|
Finally retired
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt
So FAnG only had 160 more incs than last rd? I expected more with all the whining going on.....
|
err, check the other thread for this round... these overviews are both overviews for r45 (just updated with the new code).
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]
In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
|
|
|
12 May 2012, 17:46
|
#21
|
Mercenary
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Todmorden
Posts: 1,192
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
Haha, yes, I've just noticed, apologies!!
__________________
FAnG
Ascendancy
Apprime
Ultores
|
|
|
12 May 2012, 17:48
|
#22
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
|
Re: Alliance fleet statistics
You're all looking for this thread on this round's statistics. the one with "Round 46" in the name
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:11.
| |