Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

So alliance stats finally revealed http://beta.planetarion.com/history/...?id=6&round=57

Total incs :
Ultores 4948
p3nguins 3455
Faceless 3254
Black Flag 3050
Conspiracy 2628

Just a small notice, with ~83 incs per member Ultores had the highest inc/member since eXilition in Round 19 when we had 2k planets in that round and alliance size limit of 80 i think(PA history shows eXilition ended round with 61 planets in tag)

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

Had I not left tag there would be another 75 on that total.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

Well, i think there has never been a round where 4 alliances has had more than 3k incs aswell?

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

So Assassin was right when he said he thought we would have second highest number of incs and I was wrong when I said I was not so sure.

However the numbers on all the top alliances is surprising... where did all the launches come from!

I think those of us (myself included!) who were complaining that Black Flag were getting an easy round by napping were clearly wrong! If any could have been said to have had an easy round based upon their number of incs it is Spore or ND.

Incs per member (based upon number of members at end)
Ultores: 82.47 (I notice DeeJay rounded up!)
P3nguins: 65.19
Faceless: 54.23
Black Flag: 50.83
Howling Rain: 47.88 (let no one saying that attempting to avoiding wars gives HR easy rounds!)
Conspiracy: 44.54
Spore: 39.22
NewDawn 37
HEROES: 31.56
Vikings: 30.4

Just as importantly most alliances only managed to get just over 50% of incs to recall; Given the number of incs Ult had they are surprisingly on top.

Percentage of incs recalled:
Ultores: 57.34%
Spore: 56.77%
P3nguins: 55.51%
Conspiracy: 55.29%
Black Flag: 54.56%
Faceless: 53.07%
Howling Rain: 46.51%
NewDawn: 42.81%
Vikings: 35.92%
HEROES: 33.46%
(while it should be obvious I should point out this will not be representative of the number of waves landing - most alliance will be less likely to cover big waves than solo incs!) Before anyone gets the idea that this means you should attack HEROES I hit a couple of their planets this round while at war with Ult - they send so many retals you will wish you hadn't bothered!

I wonder if this will put a spoke in the wheels of those who want EVEN MORE offensive stats!

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

Would as always be interesting to see a curve of when alliances got their incs. Is it possible BF got over half the last week?:P

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

i´d like to see that aswell, idd

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

not to mention Ultores didn't do much defending last week of play while still receiving a fair amount of inc

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

We dont seem to have got any break down in timing this round at all :( last round there was a half time stats, and previously it has been broken into thirds, no?

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

We do like our retals :D
Less effort for us to just hit our attackers

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

I see no reason why this could not be in the Universe page in-game. It would be a really interesting addition telling everyone who is not plugged into politics who is getting bashed most!

It might *wishful thinking* reduce the discussion on here about 'we got more incs than you' 'oh no you didn't' and replace it with a more fact based discussion as there will be more facts available; something that is rather lacking at the moment.

However I would suggest that there should be a delay; clearly this is necessary to stop anyone getting on in the morning deciding to simply send fleets against who the universe page shows had most incs overnight! The delay should also be reasonably long, something like 72 ticks so that alliance HCs cant really make decisions based upon it.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

I wouldnt think BF got 1500 incs in 1 week, not with the pattern of roid loss they had. I would presume more that they have about 800-1k in the last 7 days.

I would also presume that the 2nd bash on Ultores gave them about 60% of their round incs.

That is normally the MOST active time of the round so i would presume fleet activity to be at its highest then (excluding first 2 days). Also ULt had no Xans so there attackers must had had a fair whack of them (from the percentage of Xans playing which would have raised the amount of fleets that attacked Ultores.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

ultores had around 15 xans, p3ng had 50 or so that didn't hit us past like tick 400

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

DLR round 30 too, actually, with 97 incs per member. Still ancient history, but not quite as ancient.

Anyway, I don't understand people's obsession with bragging over how many incs they got. If you get lots of incs, you ****ed up politically. Don't **** up. (But in the interest of DATA, here's a table of all top 10 alliance incs since r14, sorted by number of incs per member, in descending order : http://pastebin.com/rQngqixc, and sorted by cover rate, in descending order: http://pastebin.com/BcpPDvAH)

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

how did they cover 20 percent and win round 16

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

Ultores really should have won one of the past three rounds, and if they'd have found some friends they'd have done it. They're clearly the best military operation, probably by a considerable margin looking at the stats.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

I believe it was the round that asc won by going for xp meaning covering incs was not necessary for gaining score and indeed could be harmful to it! Attacking ftw! (someone who was actually in asc that round might correct me if I am wrong)

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

Correct. Even crashing your fleet wasn't a tragedy.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

r30, r40

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

r30 was a longer round iirc, which is why its stats are higher

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

The coverage rate table is somewhat useless tbh, as it depends very much on the stats being played with. You got r45 with 3 alliances in the top10, and r34 and r49 have two each as well. Pretty clearly those rounds had defensive stats, probably MT. Also, for the purpose of these stats it's better to cover one 10man team up than 5 one fleet attacks, while in reality that rarely makes sense. Not to mention that having people crash on your def actually works against you in this stat. I recall the crash rate in r30 especially as very high.

Waves launched/landed/capped/recalled (if such stats are possible) could perhaps be a better way of looking at the best defensive performances.

There's really no reason why alliance incoming data can't be saved at 00:00 every night and then made into a curve at the round end. Shouldn't take much effort to code that, I imagine.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

Quite a few rounds have been longer or shorter than the standard 6 weeks

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

The standard duration is 7 weeks. After r30, I can recall only one round (6 weeks, when Jagex gave up on PA) that deviated from the norm by more than a couple of days due to downtime.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

Who cares, Ult gets the most incs and sends the most def. Better start setting up the anti Ult block for next round, or you'll be fcked for sure!

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

Yah it was longer.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

It is very simple. Ultores has the best players and the worst Politics, the Universe knows that if they don't block Ult...Ult will win. If they do block...Ult will most likely not win, but there is still a chance they could win due to player skill.

Is it right/fair that Ultores gets blocked each round? Yes, because if they aren't blocked then the round is already won by Ultores and makes it pointless to play.

In terms of this round...Ultores should have won based on the quality of players, they out played everyone and would have won a 1v1 with equal value in a war.

However, CT did deserve this round win too because of their political moves to limit the amount of incs on their members.

I think Ult needs to take a step back and try to build a relationship with another alliance...it will be more effective then to have a jihad alliance (HEROES) as their peons which i think hurts Ults image.

All in all good round, well played CT!

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

We have a winner

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

Thing is, with the Block tactic, you end up ruining your own chances of Winning, if you dont keep ult in the race but overly mass Block, and gang roid them like last round, they Will end up deciding the winner.

Faceless Down and out in 24 hours, bf a little more, 36 perhaps, spore planet ranks poof.

There is an obvious reason why ct won ally, and p3n/heroes held planet ranks.

Oh yea ct were politically excellent, but at the end of the Day someone Else decided the win.

So keep blocking, and be sure that ult Will decide who Wins again next round, unless something decent like spore rnd 56 shows up, and run Ahead, while the blocking occurs.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

Claiming it was purely ult that decided CT won is a bit off the mark tho. BF surely would not have lost that amount of roids at the hands of ult alone.

basicly, CT won because they were the only alliance left that were within spitting distance of BF. BF just paid for being #1, and not being ahead enough with X ticks to go. Fairly certain if the roles were reversed between CT and BF it would be BF that was celebrating. much like with ND's win in r49 after a gangbanging on FAnG. The problem nowadays is not so much blocking, which is as old as the game is. The problem lies in the gangbanging. Regardless of there being problems you really can't blame anyone in CT/BF/FL for Ultores failing on the political front. Let's face the music here and realise that in the rounds that were won by Ultores they had fairly loyal friends in the likes of Apprime/xVx/DFWTK. Nowadays you don't have such friends anymore and in the past 2 rounds it's became painfully clear that Ultores was unable to make friends like that in the other allies. And imho, if Ultores don't start realising why they fail to do so, they will not win a round any time soon.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

Breaking News! Best Alliance in the Game Has Biggest Impact on Who Wins!

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

Pahaha CT deserved to win??????? Take your head for a shake, it was merely a choice of who we disliked the most.

CT/SPORE/BF/FACE

You lot need to go play NAPTARION perhaps Appoco will make a round where there is no way to attack, I am sure that would make you lot happy.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

There won't be an Ultores tag the coming round, so I don't think we will either!

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

As much as I agree over the long term that this is true as Ult did not really target CT as it did FL and BF however over the short term final three day rush I dont think that Ult had much influence over who won. CT and FL were in pretty similar positions quite a stretch from BF and it was CT that succeeded in climbing the mountain. Did Ult determine who out of FL and CT would be the one who made up the gap; I dont think Ult did much targeting of faceless beyond Sleepless so I doubt it. Did Ult determine that BF collapsed? Again I don't think so - I think that is BF's own responsibility.
It could be said that it was ult that determined those positions before the race to the finish but not who won the final furlong.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

well regardless of what you think, we allowed CT to land on us free from defense before the final week as we knew if we wanted to we could take the roids back, there was also a discussion about if we couldn't realistically win what we could do and CT came out on top of the alliance we disliked the least, so we left them alone pretty much.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

Considering it was openly decided days before to attempt to flagship CT you are incorrect booji.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

BF didn't collapse :rolleyes:

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

That is why I said you put them in the position to be able to make that final run to the finish. You however did not do the final bit for them; they did the xping - the pulling bigger planets so smaller ones could land so they could make up that final gap. You were also not defending against faceless attempts to land (I presume anyway!), or against BF attempts to land over the last three days so were not the ones reducing their attempts to xp (I dont know how much FL were doing but BF were certainly trying).

Stop trying to claim you did EVERYTHING it is very unfair on everyone else who plays this game to try and demean their victory so.

Edit: Firebird that you decided you would prefer CT to win does not mean you did the work for them. We also about a week out decided we would prefer CT to win but p3n would certainly never suggest we had much influence over CT actually managing it!

You had some large value losses, this was what I was referring to not not to something alliance wide.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

If we had targeted CT and Faceless BF would have won!
If we had targeted CT and BF faceless would have won!
If we had targeted Faceless and BF CT would have won!

Guess which we targeted?

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

Sorry that just does not say anything to me. Others could have influenced the outcome in exactly the same way. If that is all you mean then all the other major alliances had just as much influence on CT winning as you did.

Take the you putting them in the position to win, that you assuredly did on your own and others could not have done. Not this where other decisions by any alliance could have meant the same. Claiming a lot of ifs and buts and counterfactuals is not helpful.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

Lets face it ULT should have and would have won the round if not for 60% of the uni blocking.

So that left for a mediocre alliance of the block to win, CT+FACE+BF were all wanting the win.

p3n were busy with spore

Face had hit HR so HR agreed to work with ULT hitting Face

Faceless imploded pretty quickly

Leaving only CT/BF knowing the disgust of how BF had fenced their way threw the round it was quite easy to get assistance to hit BF.

Meaning CT had a clear run to #1

I will not credit any alliance that sits behind a block and fences its way to round win that is exactly what CT/SPORE/BF/FACE did.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

I completely agree that Ult should have won and were by a long way the best alliance. Nobody else faced the same kind of pressure and when they did for brief periods they tended to sink. Nowhere was I disputing this.

You have toned down your language a bit so I wont argue any more.

Fencesitting or blocking however is a perfectly good strategy because the goal of the game is not to play best but to win at tickstop. Ult clearly were lacking something in this department - other alliances that would block with them or an ability to avoid wars and undermine opposing blocks! This by all accounts is what is different now from when you won before. And is what is different from how other alliances that have clearly had the best players over long periods have done when they have won before.

On the other hand if we want it to be based on who plays best then there needs to be a different system for scoring alliances - somebody should post something about alliance points on the suggestion forums. I might do so myself if no one gets around to it in the next few days.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

FB - i like you, but you seem to forget that ultores came into this round with 2 support tags - whether they were full or not, that is giving yourself a massive advantage, and caused people to not want to work with you. Galactic cowboys and Heroes went where you went, and were unquestionably loyal to ultores - is that something the 'best alliance' needs? Calling other alliances mediocore because you probably did easily steam roll everyone with your buddies - IMO - a tad unfair, it wasnt exactly a level playing field from tick start!

This isnt the first time someone has won by fencing. The first block vs ultores wouldnt have stopped unless BF had left it - We didnt feel comfortable with the bashing that early on. When we 'backstabbed' Ultores later, this was because you had made a deal with Faceless that you would stop raping them in return for them dropping nap with us and hitting us.

Well played Ultores & pals - not the first time someone has fenced to win, and not the first time CT have backstabbed an alliance I have been in to steal the win either. This game is like groundhog day!

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

People not wanting to live anymore after realising all hope was lost :(

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

Put another way, CT played their politics well and avoided making unnecessary enemies. Unlike some others. You should really learn to stop putting your alliance on center stage all the time. Ultores' and Apprime's (perceived) ego is one of the reasons many people dislike you so much. There's nothing wrong with having a big ego, but expecting (nearly demanding) that other alliances allow you to win despite that... well, maybe that's not the most reasonable of stances.

I suppose there's nothing to the most militarily able alliance trying to paint all other forms of skill as inferior.

Ultores "should" have won if they had been able to prevent "60%" of the universe blocking against them. But you ****ed up, and it's not the first time you **** up in this exact way. Similarly, Ultores "should" have won if military skill were the only thing that mattered in this game. But it's not. PA is not just a war game. Political abilities, military might and activity all play their part, in roughly descending order of importance.

(I don't like the word "should", if that isn't obvious by now. Things are what they are. "Should" is useless.)

And again. CT is as mediocre militarily as Ultores is politically. But CT won 2 of the last 4 rounds (same as Apprime), so apparently they're doing something right.

(Unrelatedly, Apprime is the alliance that won the most rounds in PA history: 7, with Ascendancy and Ultores tied at 6 each. Kudos for that. No sarcasm intended.)

And yet another time. "Alliances that are good at the things we're good at are awesome, alliances who are good at things we're bad at suck". Give it a rest.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

We never intended to drop the nap with BF, not sure who has told you that!

But it's not much point to keep discussing this anyways :rolleyes:

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

I agree, its history now :D

But I never said you dropped nap - just asked faceless to hit us in return for Ultores not hitting them anymore, hence why BF was probing other allies to hit Ult again and trying to make peace with the p3nguins.

I am sure no matter who had won, someone would have something to say about it. Thats planetarion. Anyone ever had a flawless victory? :devil:

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

Personally I think your targetting of us came back to bite you. Otherwise we may have worked together towards the latter part of the round and the outcome MAY have been different. But it's all if, buts and maybes

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

You could also include the egos of some of your HCs in on that too, judging by some of their illogical posts and decisions on AD

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

Firebird, you know as well as I that military means smurf all when you're playing with such offensive stats like the ones we have just experienced in R57.

The problem with Ultores is they were arrogant enough to think that they could win a round based on military alone with no concept for politics at all.

Instead of looking at how you failed, you blame other alliances for your failure and start throwing insults around / arrogantly advocate how "Ultores are the best because we got blocked".

As in most offensive rounds, R57 was a politics round, and unfortunately Ultores do not possess the skill to wield politics.

Good Game CT, well played and deserved.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

we have stated many times that we refuse to play naptarion politics, its not healthy for the game as we saw from the mindless bashing of HR by top allies cos there was no one else left to hit.

Re: Round 57 Alliance Stats
 

There's a difference between refusing to play politics and unable to play politics. We will never know because most alliances didn't want to work with you.