|
12 May 2012, 14:50
|
#1
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
|
Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Well, with a repeat of last time, slightly more depth ...
sorted by name:
Code:
+----------------------+---------+------------+------------+-----------+-----------+------------+---------------+----------+---------+
| name | members | real_score | real_value | real_incs | fake_incs | total_incs | incs_recalled | ally_def | gal_def |
+----------------------+---------+------------+------------+-----------+-----------+------------+---------------+----------+---------+
| 1up | 1 | 1620188 | 1411328 | 37 | 0 | 37 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
| A-Team | 1 | 442965 | 273705 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| AFCA | 1 | 1505257 | 1042117 | 29 | 0 | 29 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| an Ode to Myself | 1 | 3484837 | 2747197 | 48 | 0 | 48 | 30 | 27 | 18 |
| Apollo | 4 | 7039045 | 5639245 | 79 | 0 | 79 | 32 | 39 | 31 |
| Apprime | 45 | 222098992 | 191358472 | 1719 | 5 | 1724 | 1179 | 969 | 706 |
| Bfb | 1 | 855586 | 819766 | 14 | 0 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Bluetubas | 1 | 1262196 | 994956 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| BorderPatroll | 1 | 1227492 | 1173732 | 19 | 1 | 20 | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| Brasil | 2 | 2783433 | 1924773 | 25 | 2 | 27 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| cobra | 3 | 8159175 | 7239735 | 116 | 0 | 116 | 65 | 0 | 103 |
| Conspiracy | 76 | 403897717 | 344687977 | 3184 | 16 | 3200 | 2041 | 2870 | 728 |
| Damage Inc | 2 | 4799326 | 3664246 | 82 | 1 | 83 | 16 | 3 | 97 |
| DFWTK | 60 | 277319012 | 223722032 | 2359 | 11 | 2370 | 1511 | 2465 | 638 |
| DLR | 26 | 125954580 | 111268860 | 782 | 10 | 792 | 550 | 607 | 342 |
| Ending | 1 | 353324 | 243884 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| FAnG | 76 | 413853064 | 356070784 | 5445 | 43 | 5488 | 4146 | 3959 | 1107 |
| Flying Dutchman | 1 | 1484340 | 1275600 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Forgotten Stars | 2 | 1247759 | 1143599 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 2 |
| GBH | 1 | 1321288 | 525148 | 23 | 6 | 29 | 10 | 5 | 6 |
| GJ | 2 | 4403792 | 3738812 | 109 | 2 | 111 | 18 | 0 | 32 |
| hhhh | 1 | 437320 | 357460 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hidden Agenda | 26 | 90652225 | 75328285 | 857 | 3 | 860 | 440 | 608 | 289 |
| hirr | 2 | 1166467 | 1053847 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 3 |
| Howling Rain | 51 | 168058986 | 132201246 | 1878 | 13 | 1891 | 842 | 1157 | 587 |
| Klodriks Kanoner | 6 | 14632799 | 12309839 | 171 | 0 | 171 | 49 | 0 | 61 |
| Last Stand | 1 | 1043999 | 683399 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Legion | 1 | 1650557 | 1384937 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Leonidas | 1 | 963911 | 873851 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Me and him | 2 | 3413450 | 2283170 | 12 | 1 | 13 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Mjolnir | 1 | 2817682 | 2578582 | 17 | 0 | 17 | 5 | 0 | 11 |
| Moonfog | 1 | 530623 | 443743 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| N00B | 1 | 1928143 | 881203 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| NewDawn | 58 | 255911595 | 205251375 | 2305 | 25 | 2330 | 1464 | 1952 | 684 |
| Noobs | 2 | 2861208 | 2551308 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 7 | 0 | 13 |
| nordic alliance | 2 | 4183948 | 3508108 | 73 | 1 | 74 | 24 | 1 | 37 |
| once_in_a_lifetime | 1 | 3231486 | 2453406 | 15 | 1 | 16 | 2 | 0 | 15 |
| PATSA | 7 | 21731234 | 19911674 | 136 | 1 | 137 | 72 | 0 | 101 |
| Phoenix | 24 | 41948485 | 32838385 | 686 | 8 | 694 | 252 | 204 | 251 |
| PwNeD | 18 | 55355756 | 38762696 | 635 | 5 | 640 | 275 | 375 | 236 |
| quest | 1 | 1393596 | 1007076 | 14 | 0 | 14 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| ROCK | 16 | 65103119 | 56906819 | 468 | 8 | 476 | 222 | 175 | 174 |
| Smegheads | 1 | 211309 | 170269 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Snabb | 1 | 563495 | 520115 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| THA | 3 | 6456704 | 5273984 | 44 | 1 | 45 | 26 | 22 | 7 |
| The Dutch | 1 | 458055 | 291795 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| The Galactic Vikings | 27 | 101945891 | 83833151 | 1104 | 9 | 1113 | 640 | 600 | 366 |
| ThereCanOnlyBeONE | 1 | 3308077 | 3197797 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Tides of Fire | 44 | 172665161 | 138354221 | 1998 | 21 | 2019 | 1236 | 1477 | 503 |
| Ultores | 67 | 416361893 | 348611213 | 3820 | 29 | 3849 | 2552 | 2290 | 1415 |
| xVx | 49 | 253206145 | 217619365 | 930 | 13 | 943 | 580 | 830 | 290 |
| xVx.bg | 2 | 7919920 | 7597000 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 5 |
+----------------------+---------+------------+------------+-----------+-----------+------------+---------------+----------+---------+
Sorted by rank:
Code:
+----------------------+---------+------------+------------+-----------+-----------+------------+---------------+----------+---------+
| name | members | real_score | real_value | real_incs | fake_incs | total_incs | incs_recalled | ally_def | gal_def |
+----------------------+---------+------------+------------+-----------+-----------+------------+---------------+----------+---------+
| Ultores | 67 | 416361893 | 348611213 | 3820 | 29 | 3849 | 2552 | 2290 | 1415 |
| FAnG | 76 | 413853064 | 356070784 | 5445 | 43 | 5488 | 4146 | 3959 | 1107 |
| Conspiracy | 76 | 403897717 | 344687977 | 3184 | 16 | 3200 | 2041 | 2870 | 728 |
| xVx | 49 | 253206145 | 217619365 | 930 | 13 | 943 | 580 | 830 | 290 |
| DFWTK | 60 | 277319012 | 223722032 | 2359 | 11 | 2370 | 1511 | 2465 | 638 |
| NewDawn | 58 | 255911595 | 205251375 | 2305 | 25 | 2330 | 1464 | 1952 | 684 |
| Apprime | 45 | 222098992 | 191358472 | 1719 | 5 | 1724 | 1179 | 969 | 706 |
| Tides of Fire | 44 | 172665161 | 138354221 | 1998 | 21 | 2019 | 1236 | 1477 | 503 |
| Howling Rain | 51 | 168058986 | 132201246 | 1878 | 13 | 1891 | 842 | 1157 | 587 |
| DLR | 26 | 125954580 | 111268860 | 782 | 10 | 792 | 550 | 607 | 342 |
| The Galactic Vikings | 27 | 101945891 | 83833151 | 1104 | 9 | 1113 | 640 | 600 | 366 |
| Hidden Agenda | 26 | 90652225 | 75328285 | 857 | 3 | 860 | 440 | 608 | 289 |
| ROCK | 16 | 65103119 | 56906819 | 468 | 8 | 476 | 222 | 175 | 174 |
| PwNeD | 18 | 55355756 | 38762696 | 635 | 5 | 640 | 275 | 375 | 236 |
| Phoenix | 24 | 41948485 | 32838385 | 686 | 8 | 694 | 252 | 204 | 251 |
| PATSA | 7 | 21731234 | 19911674 | 136 | 1 | 137 | 72 | 0 | 101 |
| Klodriks Kanoner | 6 | 14632799 | 12309839 | 171 | 0 | 171 | 49 | 0 | 61 |
| cobra | 3 | 8159175 | 7239735 | 116 | 0 | 116 | 65 | 0 | 103 |
| xVx.bg | 2 | 7919920 | 7597000 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 5 |
| Apollo | 4 | 7039045 | 5639245 | 79 | 0 | 79 | 32 | 39 | 31 |
| THA | 3 | 6456704 | 5273984 | 44 | 1 | 45 | 26 | 22 | 7 |
| Damage Inc | 2 | 4799326 | 3664246 | 82 | 1 | 83 | 16 | 3 | 97 |
| GJ | 2 | 4403792 | 3738812 | 109 | 2 | 111 | 18 | 0 | 32 |
| nordic alliance | 2 | 4183948 | 3508108 | 73 | 1 | 74 | 24 | 1 | 37 |
| ThereCanOnlyBeONE | 1 | 3308077 | 3197797 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| once_in_a_lifetime | 1 | 3231486 | 2453406 | 15 | 1 | 16 | 2 | 0 | 15 |
| Noobs | 2 | 2861208 | 2551308 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 7 | 0 | 13 |
| Mjolnir | 1 | 2817682 | 2578582 | 17 | 0 | 17 | 5 | 0 | 11 |
| Brasil | 2 | 2783433 | 1924773 | 25 | 2 | 27 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Me and him | 2 | 3413450 | 2283170 | 12 | 1 | 13 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| quest | 1 | 1393596 | 1007076 | 14 | 0 | 14 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| N00B | 1 | 1928143 | 881203 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Legion | 1 | 1650557 | 1384937 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| AFCA | 1 | 1505257 | 1042117 | 29 | 0 | 29 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| Flying Dutchman | 1 | 1484340 | 1275600 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 1up | 1 | 1620188 | 1411328 | 37 | 0 | 37 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
| Bluetubas | 1 | 1262196 | 994956 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| BorderPatroll | 1 | 1227492 | 1173732 | 19 | 1 | 20 | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| hirr | 2 | 1166467 | 1053847 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 3 |
| Last Stand | 1 | 1043999 | 683399 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Leonidas | 1 | 963911 | 873851 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| an Ode to Myself | 1 | 3484837 | 2747197 | 48 | 0 | 48 | 30 | 27 | 18 |
| Bfb | 1 | 855586 | 819766 | 14 | 0 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Forgotten Stars | 2 | 1247759 | 1143599 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 2 |
| Snabb | 1 | 563495 | 520115 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Moonfog | 1 | 530623 | 443743 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| The Dutch | 1 | 458055 | 291795 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| A-Team | 1 | 442965 | 273705 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| hhhh | 1 | 437320 | 357460 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ending | 1 | 353324 | 243884 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Smegheads | 1 | 211309 | 170269 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GBH | 1 | 1321288 | 525148 | 23 | 6 | 29 | 10 | 5 | 6 |
+----------------------+---------+------------+------------+-----------+-----------+------------+---------------+----------+---------+
Edit: fixed the scores, etc.
Notes:
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
Edit #2:
Backdated this information from Round 14- Round 46 here
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
Last edited by Appocomaster; 12 May 2012 at 18:39.
|
|
|
12 May 2012, 18:14
|
#2
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Surprising:
fANg incs: 5488
Ultores incs: 3849
Less surprising:
Both Ultores' and fAnG's defense continues to be really good, unlike CT's and ND's. I forgot who said that FANg was mostly an Ultores-light, and CT mostly an ND-improved, but these stats certainly confirm those comparisons.
Other notes:
See Apprime, whose incs were nothing compared to the top 3, but who manage a similar ratio in recalls-to-deffleets as Ultores and FaNg, demonstrating that if they ever started caring again, we might have an interesting round on our hands.
Ultores is clearly the fortressing alliance, with FanG as a close second, and CT as a distant third. See Apprime, here also.
xVx seems to have done well in the avoiding incs game. By sticking to Ultores during the latter half of the round, they always ensured that there was a more immediate threat for alliances to focus on, reducing their incs substantially. Clever.
P.S. Suggesting sorting these stats by rank, rather than by alliance name. Searching for notable alliances in this format is annoying, and no one cares about "an Ode to Myself".
__________________
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.
|
|
|
12 May 2012, 18:41
|
#3
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Sorted by rank. Unfortunately (?) sorted the history page data by name not by rank (rank would mean taking rank as an extra field)
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
|
|
|
12 May 2012, 23:27
|
#4
|
Retard0r
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,164
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
mz called me clever...
__________________
-Chimpie
* We do not exist *
* G-II * NoS * VsN * Ascendancy * Osiris * xVx * Ultores *
|
|
|
13 May 2012, 00:14
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,143
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
DLR played this round?
|
|
|
13 May 2012, 06:59
|
#6
|
Who cares?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 248
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
In the case of fortress gals, does it count the defense sent by ingal alliance members as "gal_def" ?
Because I do note that Ultores is good at getting gal def as compared to other alliances. If the stats count ingal allie def as "gal_def" then that makes sense, otherwise its kinda unexpected, since Ult member have less out of allie bp members etc.
|
|
|
13 May 2012, 12:51
|
#7
|
Bad Girl
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: right here..right now
Posts: 1,055
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Less bottom feeding, much appreciated tyvm (not sarcasm)
tho the question .. how much chocolate did xVx have to hand out to get less than 1k incommings
__________________
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
|
|
|
13 May 2012, 18:42
|
#8
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
The fact that TGV, with almost half the numbers, got almost 15% or so more incomings, is pretty incredible
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
|
|
|
13 May 2012, 18:57
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 161
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Appocomaster
Sorted by rank. Unfortunately (?) sorted the history page data by name not by rank (rank would mean taking rank as an extra field)
|
That is unfortunate imo. Total score descending?
|
|
|
13 May 2012, 19:00
|
#10
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
I have it scripted, will truncate and rerun I think.
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
|
|
|
13 May 2012, 19:53
|
#11
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Im glad the stats finaly came out, and what ive been saying all round seems to be pretty accurate.
Ultores werent even close in the total amount of incs when compared to FAnG, i think it showed us once again that this is a game of politics more than anything else, and Ultores clearly had the upper hand on FAnG this round due to that.
Anyway, TGV realy had a busy round, and they withheald pretty well.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
13 May 2012, 20:12
|
#12
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,143
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Im glad the stats finaly came out, and what ive been saying all round seems to be pretty accurate.
Ultores werent even close in the total amount of incs when compared to FAnG, i think it showed us once again that this is a game of politics more than anything else, and Ultores clearly had the upper hand on FAnG this round due to that.
Anyway, TGV realy had a busy round, and they withheald pretty well.
|
It's a big difference getting alot of incs late in the round when you've got a huge valuelead on everyone and getting hit pre t300 when everyones equal.
The stats from last round proves that pretty well
|
|
|
13 May 2012, 20:33
|
#13
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by eksero
It's a big difference getting alot of incs late in the round when you've got a huge valuelead on everyone and getting hit pre t300 when everyones equal.
The stats from last round proves that pretty well
|
The most incs of FAnG im pretty sure came before the last two weeks of the round.
When FAnG took the largest hits they were in 2nd, so i proves nothing else than Ultores/CT clearly did the right political moves, all being in #1 at some point, still avoiding incs.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
13 May 2012, 20:46
|
#14
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,143
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Point still stands, you had a gigantic valuelead when you got hit, while we had the bulk of our incs when everyone was about the same size
|
|
|
13 May 2012, 22:47
|
#15
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
As great and all as these stats are (kudos appoco/whoever is responsible for them) one should recall the old adage about lies, damn lies and statistics. Beyond eksero's point about the timing of incs being important in terms of the start of the round and the issues over fleet value etc there are other areas. For example over-covering incs outside of peak inc times using ally def would show up as something good on these stats (raising your def fleets sent) when the most efficient option would be to use ingal def (ideally this fleet would never even launch as the attacker would jgp by eta 5, see def and recall). Equally something good, sending early attack waves at 1/2am to try and drain def fleets which then couldn't be used on attack and recalling yourself to def/self-cover/attack elsewhere looks like something bad (the attacked alliance has a higher cover/recall %). Food for thought either way though.
And holy shit did xVx even play this round, that is outrageous.
Oh and congratulations Ultores. Good to see an alliance with enough self-belief to keep going through a tough start to the round. I'd come back and see if I could stop you winning five in a row next round but y'know, razor blades in eyeballs etc.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
Last edited by JonnyBGood; 13 May 2012 at 22:56.
|
|
|
13 May 2012, 23:48
|
#16
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by eksero
Point still stands, you had a gigantic valuelead when you got hit, while we had the bulk of our incs when everyone was about the same size
|
This is just BS, FAnG got hit throughout the whole round.
Ultores for sure got hit a lot in the start, but before easter the presure was lowered.
These stats dont lie, FAnG clearly had more enemies than Ultores this round, and thats why Ultores won, cus they played the political card best. The Ultores/CT/What ever side outnumbered FAnG by far, both in value and in numbers.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
13 May 2012, 23:55
|
#17
|
Who cares?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 248
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Would it be possible to see a race/shiptype breakdown per alliance as well?
edit: B-Butch3r why do you keep doing this? People on AD are never going to agree with you, but every thread you make into a huge back and forth between you and some of the other usual suspects. You were right about Ult going to win, take pride in that and please stop doing this?
|
|
|
14 May 2012, 00:19
|
#18
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,143
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
This is just BS, FAnG got hit throughout the whole round.
Ultores for sure got hit a lot in the start, but before easter the presure was lowered.
These stats dont lie, FAnG clearly had more enemies than Ultores this round, and thats why Ultores won, cus they played the political card best. The Ultores/CT/What ever side outnumbered FAnG by far, both in value and in numbers.
|
Well, looking at that other thread, your definition of 'being hit' is getting incs from random galraids..
I never denied that fang had more enemies than us this round, BUT most of the incs we had were all pre tick 500, we had a couple of 150-200 inc nights after that, but nothing more really. You on the other hand had most of your incs in the second half of the round, which is way easier to defend, given you had a big valuelead
|
|
|
14 May 2012, 00:34
|
#19
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 374
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
mm so last round Ult had the situation FaNG had this round..
But lets face it you lost it by not grounding those first 4 days of incs.
IF you played it right you should still have won with the members you have.
Just like Ult did last round..
|
|
|
14 May 2012, 09:05
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tallinn
Posts: 734
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
This is just BS, FAnG got hit throughout the whole round.
Ultores for sure got hit a lot in the start, but before easter the presure was lowered.
These stats dont lie, FAnG clearly had more enemies than Ultores this round, and thats why Ultores won, cus they played the political card best. The Ultores/CT/What ever side outnumbered FAnG by far, both in value and in numbers.
|
you lost from a 98% winning position.. time to get over it
__________________
VISION FTW
THIS IS ULTORES
|
|
|
15 May 2012, 12:02
|
#21
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 24
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Epic to have all the old info up there, thanks Appoco
Would be nice if it could be sorted by alliance rank instead of name if possible though, as people said. Also, is it possible to add another column, for 'incs per member' or something. Just the total number of incs divided by alliance membercount? Might be an even better representation than the total number of incs...
|
|
|
15 May 2012, 15:14
|
#22
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaZeR
Epic to have all the old info up there, thanks Appoco
Would be nice if it could be sorted by alliance rank instead of name if possible though, as people said. Also, is it possible to add another column, for 'incs per member' or something. Just the total number of incs divided by alliance membercount? Might be an even better representation than the total number of incs...
|
I re-did it all and *thought* I sorted by rank ... apologies, I seem to have not done that. I'll fix it shortly.
The data is really there for further analysis as much as anything else.
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
|
|
|
15 May 2012, 16:25
|
#23
|
Retard0r
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,164
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
And holy shit did xVx even play this round, that is outrageous.
|
We hit the alliances above us 90% of the round, they just seemd too busy to throw something back at us. That being said we may have tapdanced a bit to keep the heavy incs away at the same time..
__________________
-Chimpie
* We do not exist *
* G-II * NoS * VsN * Ascendancy * Osiris * xVx * Ultores *
|
|
|
16 May 2012, 00:14
|
#24
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 673
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Other notes:
See Apprime, whose incs were nothing compared to the top 3, but who manage a similar ratio in recalls-to-deffleets as Ultores and FaNg, demonstrating that if they ever started caring again, we might have an interesting round on our hands.
|
With CBA still around thinking he is the coolest kid on the block we can never be serial
__________________
At some point the world shits on everybody. Pretending it ain't shit makes you an idiot, not an optimist."
If life hands you lemons, drink more tequila
After the game is over the king and the pawn end up in the same box
HA - asc -rdm-asc-VR- #ODDR - APP
Finally retired
|
|
|
17 May 2012, 08:38
|
#25
|
The Video Guy
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,279
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
http://beta.planetarion.com/history/?id=7&round=38
NFI had 3,800~ incs round 38. Granted, not as many as FaNG had this round but that statistic should still at least prove we didn't have an "easy" round.
Just sayin'.
__________________
Writing lists and taking names.
|
|
|
17 May 2012, 11:25
|
#26
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
So you guys want meaningless stats, I'll give them to you.
Top 10 alliances: https://gist.github.com/2717819
Top 10 alliances by total incs: https://gist.github.com/2717849
Top 10 alliances by ratio: https://gist.github.com/2717959
Round winners by total incs: https://gist.github.com/2717892
Round winners by ratio: https://gist.github.com/2717966
__________________
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.
|
|
|
17 May 2012, 11:40
|
#27
|
So what?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 606
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Holy shit. Round 30 really was as awesome as I remember it being.
__________________
Legion
[RaH] [Mercenaries]
|
|
|
17 May 2012, 13:26
|
#28
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shev
Holy shit. Round 30 really was as awesome as I remember it being.
|
Yeah but we were cheating like ****.
No really, how do we have 106 planets intag on that list? Because I'm pretty sure I would have remembered that.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
17 May 2012, 13:28
|
#29
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
PA history says we had 100. PAWiki agrees. So I'm not really sure what's going on. Maybe it uses a list of all the people who were in our tag at any point in the round? Appoco, care to shed some light?
__________________
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; 17 May 2012 at 13:33.
|
|
|
17 May 2012, 14:24
|
#30
|
ToF
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 607
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
secret hidden planets! i knew there was a reason for all ascs success!
__________________
[19:10] <coffee-> dont worry about Reincarnate he is an angry man
R1 - 9 none | R10.5 - 13 [ToF] | R14 [Reunion] | R15-17 [Subh] | R18 - 36 PA vacation | R37 [Evo] | R38 [NFI] | R39 & 40 [ToF] | R41 [Omega] | R42 - 47 [ToF][HC]
|
|
|
17 May 2012, 15:08
|
#31
|
Mercenary
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Todmorden
Posts: 1,192
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shev
Holy shit. Round 30 really was as awesome as I remember it being.
|
Seems so long ago
__________________
FAnG
Ascendancy
Apprime
Ultores
|
|
|
17 May 2012, 15:53
|
#32
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
What the stats tell me is that 1up/exiltion were fantastically consistent, and that ascendancy's stars really did align in r30 in terms of talent and motivation. That was probably the most military of our victories over the others.
Great work mz
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
17 May 2012, 18:48
|
#33
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
PA history says we had 100. PAWiki agrees. So I'm not really sure what's going on. Maybe it uses a list of all the people who were in our tag at any point in the round? Appoco, care to shed some light?
|
Too low for that one. I too would be interested to hear from appoco on this!
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
17 May 2012, 19:14
|
#34
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 846
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Oh my This is still going on... for the love of god can we forget 1up and exilihion.
__________________
R50-55 Faceless
|
|
|
17 May 2012, 21:50
|
#35
|
The Video Guy
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,279
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunterrrr
|
I wasn't insisting we were "better" than anyone, all I'm saying is that in the grand scheme of things the number of incs we got were pretty average for a round winning alliance.
According to mz's post, Round 30's Ascendancy looked pretty f**king rock solid. Can't remember playing that round.
__________________
Writing lists and taking names.
|
|
|
17 May 2012, 22:39
|
#36
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Looking at the stats a bit closer some of them are definitely off. For example CT won r20 and Ascendancy won r26 so presumably those snapshots were taken after the last tick and are not wholly accurate. In general it looks about right though, rounds where everyone was shit and rounds which were over very early at the bottom and the better hard-fought rounds at the top. Props to r40 apprime, I have zero recollection of that round but you must have done something right!
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
17 May 2012, 22:40
|
#37
|
Mind-boggling
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 1,468
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiamat101
Oh my This is still going on... for the love of god can we forget 1up and exilihion.
|
Agreed, and please let us remember ROCK p3nguins & ODDR by having to scroll past your amazing posts on a weekly basis
__________________
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. (Winston Churchill)
R21-Randy Dandys Winners R21
1:9:5 -SoClose- -YetSoFar-
You have pending friend requests from Newt.
|
|
|
17 May 2012, 22:42
|
#38
|
Mind-boggling
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 1,468
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Looking at the stats a bit closer some of them are definitely off. For example CT won r20 and Ascendancy won r26 so presumably those snapshots were taken after the last tick and are not wholly accurate. In general it looks about right though, rounds where everyone was shit and rounds which were over very early at the bottom and the better hard-fought rounds at the top. Props to r40 apprime, I have zero recollection of that round but you must have done something right!
|
Yes none of these statistics are 100% correct for the acuracy you are after. Apocco has stated this numerous times as there are so many variants.. Until he actually posts here you can assume 100% of the stats are "off". That is in accordance with your mindset..
Obviously props to mz.. He is working with dodgey stats though
__________________
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. (Winston Churchill)
R21-Randy Dandys Winners R21
1:9:5 -SoClose- -YetSoFar-
You have pending friend requests from Newt.
|
|
|
17 May 2012, 22:46
|
#39
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBA
Yes none of these statistics are 100% correct for the acuracy you are after. Apocco has stated this numerous times as there are so many variants.. Until he actually posts here you can assume 100% of the stats are "off". That is in accordance with your mindset..
Obviously props to mz.. He is working with dodgey stats though
|
No. Appoco stated in his first post that these are based on end of round statistics. Those 2 rounds are not. This is different to the "problems" with the stats that Appoco noted originally.
Keep reaching for those stars though CBA!
Edit: And god round 39 was awful. There are only 2 round winning alliances who didn't receive double the weighted incs that Apprime did that round.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
18 May 2012, 00:37
|
#40
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Yes, I've noticed before that the data on beta.pa.com/history isn't always correct. The PAWiki does have the correct data for those rounds, though only of top scoring ranks. Of course, the PAWiki has it's own delightful set of problems, so I generally tend to be doubtful about any information that isn't identical on both sites.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
18 May 2012, 12:14
|
#41
|
Finally retired
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Props to r40 apprime, I have zero recollection of that round but you must have done something right!
|
r40 was the round ROCK switched sides countless of times. CT/ND were more interested in ROCK, after they switched to the App/xVx/ODDR block, then they were in App.
Ohh and you couldn't be more right about round 39... That round was just horridly boring.
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]
In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
|
|
|
18 May 2012, 12:17
|
#42
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
PA history says we had 100. PAWiki agrees. So I'm not really sure what's going on. Maybe it uses a list of all the people who were in our tag at any point in the round? Appoco, care to shed some light?
|
Ah, I think this is another amendment .... I didn't take into account applicants.
I can re-run it all again and remove applicants.
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
|
|
|
18 May 2012, 12:20
|
#43
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
|
Re: Alliance Statistics - Round 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiX
Would it be possible to see a race/shiptype breakdown per alliance as well?
edit: B-Butch3r why do you keep doing this? People on AD are never going to agree with you, but every thread you make into a huge back and forth between you and some of the other usual suspects. You were right about Ult going to win, take pride in that and please stop doing this?
|
Give me more specifics and I can
As to the tick thing, I'm not sure how you'd be able to graph launched / received fleets per tick per alliance, etc.
And yes, 3 round stats are out as the data isn't from the final tick - I did mean to put a note on that. One is actually from havoc, iirc. Unfortunately, we don't have the final tick backups for those rounds, but the launch data should still be fairly accurate, even if the final ranking isn't quite there.
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:04.
| |