Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 26 Mar 2012 at 20:12 |
|
|
shadow
Wordsmith
Joined: 24 Jan 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 126
|
Posted: 26 Mar 2012 at 22:53 |
GM ThunderCat wrote:
No, no, we're truly peace-loving, honest we are Casualties by alliance Alliance | Casualties | Casualties XP | Atk Casualties | Atk Casualties XP | Def Casualties | Def Casualties XP |
---|
~Tranquil~Vision~ [Peace] | 2,426,332 | 7,515,793 | 1,574,385 | 4,933,814 | 851,947 | 2,581,979 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awww, TC......You don't think we are peaceful?
Edited by shadow - 26 Mar 2012 at 22:57
|
|
Createure
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 00:23 |
I still think these stats are improperly displayed and/or there was some kind of error in recalling them. Harmless? Atk Casualties 1,549,384 Def Casualties 498,433 I can promise you that H? did not take 3 times as many casualties in offence than defence throughout the tournament. I still think something is wrong with this... possibly the labelling of the column headings. If you compare this against Anjire's stats: Defense Alliance |
Attack Casaulties |
Defense Casaulties |
Harmless? [H?] Total |
1,188,240 |
1,549,384 |
Indeed it does seem like the defence casualties are the wrong way round... and idk what went wrong with attack casualties. For VIC according to TC: Att Casualties: 1,145,121 Def Casualties: 859,633 For VIC according to Anjire: Att Casualties: 1,025,750 Def Casualties: 1,145,121 Seems pretty much the same as the H? error.... and all the other alliance stats seem to have the same error. For me it seems clear that Anjire's stats are correct - he pulled those directly from the displayed in-tournament battle lists and people were (mostly) happy that those were all dipslaying correctly. I imagine that all the other stats TC put up that couldn't be pulled in-game also have the same att/def mixup and possible error in att casualties.
|
|
shadow
Wordsmith
Joined: 24 Jan 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 126
|
Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 00:41 |
Does TC mean Attacker/ Defender casualties possibly? Or am i confused about what you are confused about Createure?......lol
|
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 01:03 |
Creat,
I saw that GMs had other report errors. So perhaps the in-trouney reports had errors while the new stats from TC are freshly generated from the source data. Just a theory.
|
|
Createure
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 01:11 |
Point taken... but nobody was complaining about the ingame battle reports - and pretty much everyone checked those as they were being made.
Also it doesn't explain how I know for a fact that H? did not take three times more casualties in offence than defence and the other discrepencies that I pointed out earlier in the thread.
edit: @shadow: TC = ThunderCat.
Edited by Createure - 27 Mar 2012 at 01:22
|
|
GM ThunderCat
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Location: Everywhere
Status: Offline
Points: 2183
|
Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 01:27 |
Createure wrote:
I still think these stats are improperly displayed and/or there was some kind of error in recalling them.
...
I imagine that all the other stats TC put up that couldn't be pulled in-game also have the same att/def mixup and possible error in att casualties.
|
The numbers are correct, however the implications by the labels may be incorrect e.g. "def casualties" vs "casualties caused while in defense" - will double check.
|
|
Createure
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 01:30 |
Cool thanks.
|
|
shadow
Wordsmith
Joined: 24 Jan 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 126
|
Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 01:44 |
Createure wrote:
edit: @shadow: TC = ThunderCat.
|
Yes, he is the one who's stats i was referring to. He just confirmed what i was asking, about the labels. His numbers don't show more attacker casualties. The way it reads to me, there were more defender casualties taken by your alliance. So, i guess i am confused about what it is that you are confused about. Or am i confused about being confused? But seriously...."Defense Casaulties" (as TC spells it) does not mean the casualties that H? inflicted on defending units, it means the number of defending units H? lost. Same with the "Attack Casualties" Had he labeled it Defender/ Attacker Casualties, it might have made more sense....maybe?
So it would mean, using Peace as an example.... Attack Casualties 1,574,385 (units lost during attacks on flags) |
| Defense Casualties 851,947 (units lost defending flags) |
Edited by shadow - 27 Mar 2012 at 02:05
|
|
Createure
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 04:07 |
shadow wrote:
His numbers don't show more attacker casualties. |
shadow wrote:
The way it reads to me, there were more defender casualties taken by your alliance. |
TC's statistics wrote:
Harmless? Atk Casualties 1,549,384 Def Casualties 498,433 |
Do you actually read through what you've written before you hit the 'Post Reply' button? Yes. I think you are confused.
|
|