Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 22Mar12 - Tournament Close
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed22Mar12 - Tournament Close

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
Author
Anjire View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 686
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 01:12
Drejan,

The statistics, while interesting, are misleading especially dividing the xp on squares by alliance population.   Doing so, assumes that the winning alliance was involved in all the combat that took place on said squares which is hardly the case. 

For example taking the square EE won Wolgast, EE inflicted 504,725 total casualties (285, 181 while attacking and 219,544  while defending) out of the 1,492,159 casualties on the square.  So they in essence only inflicted about 33% of the total casualties that occurred on the Wolgast Square.  There is no real way to calculate the actual exp these amounted to with the posted information.

There were 32 different alliances that were involved in attacks and at least one unaffiliated player.
There were 24 different alliances that were involved in defense on Wolgast.

Each alliances exp contribution on a square would have to be calculated in order to base a stat per population of the alliance as a whole. 

Yes, Wolgast probably had the most alliances involved but since EE was listed on top that was the first square I evaluated.

~Anjire

*** I just want to add that I do agree that H? did not receive a significant amount of resistance except for on a few squares where we sort of had to force it. 

*** Also, the amount of harassment that both Tcol and HugCr applied vs. Dlords was impressive. 




Edited by Anjire - 31 Mar 2012 at 01:20
Back to Top
Drejan View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 234
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 00:20
I'm more than happy our friends and confederates won so many squares!
But in Faldrin help i'll post some statistics:

Average xp on squares held by alliance:
EE         3,989,860
KV         3,262,707
Dlord 2,790,527
Peace 2,536,830
Curse 2,321,998
VIC         1,996,672
Absa         1,942,132
DE         1,472,346
T?         1,374,125
H?         1,208,949
Crow 756,046
mCrow 745,255
nCrow 641,777
VICX         298,675

Total xp on squares held by alliance divided total alliance population:
Dlord 2.44
Absa  2.22
EE 1.94
KV 1.92
VIC 1.67
H? 1.59
Curse 1.48
T? 1.38
DE 1.19
Peace 1.11
nCrow 0.91
mCrow 0.43
VICX 0.34
Crow 0.17

Those statistics should not be taken as global tournment indicator but as parameters to estimate how much resistence alliances found on their squares.


Edited by Drejan - 31 Mar 2012 at 00:24
Back to Top
Mandarins31 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 21:43
Indeed, Geographic placement played a very important role in this tourney for every alliance, and that's true that a good part of the explaination of why H? didnt face so much challenge in a good amount of spots was because they were far from potential contesters, and also often right in H?'s hubs. I must admit H? was very well suited for a regional alliance tourney.

Well, im waiting for next alliance tourney. And i hope you guys in H? will finally face the challenge you are waiting for almost 2 years now; after White's big one you hadnt have to push your fighting skills to their last cuttings off. (i admit i didnt really see that war either. Was in Black, but was a newbie at that moment, and never heard anything from White's leadership...)


Edited by Mandarins31 - 30 Mar 2012 at 21:45
Back to Top
Createure View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 20:55
Originally posted by Mandarins31 Mandarins31 wrote:

Well, Creature, i suppose that Faldrin is evoking the spots you fought for, and on which there were less then 100k casualties overall, or a bit more than 100k. Apparently, they represent bit more than the half of the spots H? won on.
So imo, that's legitimize to say that H? could have been more... harmed, by some other alliances.


That is without a shadow of a doubt Mandarins - indeed we could.

In my humble opinion this mostly boils-down-to a question of Geography... it was a long time ago now when H? took steps to remove its powerbase from Middle Kingdom to outlying regions in the South-West and North-East... as such it is no surprise at all that all our captured squares where in the extremes of those regions.

Now, it is true that small alliances could have contested us far harder at many of those squares but I think in the end - everyone is trying to maximise their own chances at capture time and square victories... if people focus all their efforts on long-range attacks to try and contest these spots when their opponent is much more locally situated to reinforce/contest/counter attacks then they run the real risk of handing their own local capture spots to their neighbours. As such it is hardly surprising that people did not bother to waste too much effort contesting squares that they had lower chances of holding and/or winning.

On the other hand- it is hardly like every square won by H? was the same story... there were several squares early in the tournament where we put out feelers and were quickly repelled by more local alliances - likewise there were some squares (like Tor Carrock and Ursor) that we had to fight hard to capture and hold.

In the end I guess I'm saying there were many great fights all over the continent... in the end it was inevitable that geography would play an important role.

edit: @rill: Altho I was there at the time I'm hardly a veteran of the White war... I spent most of it getting beat on by several White players before I even joined H?


Edited by Createure - 30 Mar 2012 at 21:09
Back to Top
belargyle View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 20:00
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

Rank
AllianceTax Rate
Members
Population
7 Dwarven Lords [Dlord] 2 % 72 3,432,500
31 SnugglersCrowalition [HUGcr] 0 % 77 914,301
35 The Colony [TCol] 1 % 37 835,938

#1 alliance fighting against #2 alliance for a square... that I call a tought fight.

#7 alliance getting "hell" from #31 and #35 alliances? Are you Serious?

Sometimes I am worried about who I am supposed to be calling my "ally"....

Creature, I think the above missed (almost entirely) what Faldrin was saying. Honestly.



Edited by belargyle - 30 Mar 2012 at 20:27
Back to Top
Mandarins31 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 19:01
Well, Creature, i suppose that Faldrin is evoking the spots you fought for, and on which there were less then 100k casualties overall, or a bit more than 100k. Apparently, they represent bit more than the half of the spots H? won on.
So imo, that's legitimize to say that H? could have been more... harmed, by some other alliances.




Edited by Mandarins31 - 30 Mar 2012 at 19:04
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6817
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 18:59
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

Rank
AllianceTax Rate
Members
Population
7 Dwarven Lords [Dlord] 2 % 72 3,432,500
31 SnugglersCrowalition [HUGcr] 0 % 77 914,301
35 The Colony [TCol] 1 % 37 835,938

#1 alliance fighting against #2 alliance for a square... that I call a tought fight.

#7 alliance getting "hell" from #31 and #35 alliances? Are you Serious?

Sometimes I am worried about who I am supposed to be calling my "ally"....

DLords was number 5 and Snugglers and TCol were 36 and 37 at the beginning of the tourney, as I recall.  Neither had much more than 700k population.

Being bigger and having larger armies doesn't always mean you win.

One would think that a veteran of the White war would testify to this more than anyone.
Back to Top
Llyorn Of Jaensch View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Status: Offline
Points: 924
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 18:57
Originally posted by Anjire Anjire wrote:

I think a confederacy tournament would be a nightmare to code and track as Mandarins31 example is but the tip of the iceberg.  


Wuss. Do you think Edmund Hilary said "Mt WHAT? Kidding?! That'd be a Nightmare!"

Well okay thats prob EXACTLY what he said, but he did change his mind ;)
"ouch...best of luck."
HonoredMule
Back to Top
Mandarins31 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 18:42
Sun, i guess you are talknig about Leagues, and not confederations tourney. If yes, well, as you said, what you proposed seems to be a headhache factor for devs and for for the leaders who might want to organise there troops for each category of spots.
Back to Top
Faldrin View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 03 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 18:35
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

Rank
AllianceTax Rate
Members
Population
7 Dwarven Lords [Dlord] 2 % 72 3,432,500
31 SnugglersCrowalition [HUGcr] 0 % 77 914,301
35 The Colony [TCol] 1 % 37 835,938

#1 alliance fighting against #2 alliance for a square... that I call a tought fight.

#7 alliance getting "hell" from #31 and #35 alliances? Are you Serious?

Sometimes I am worried about who I am supposed to be calling my "ally"....

My point was that small alliances DID have a chance if they would have taken it.

Look at the list of casualties inflicted in each region.
The 3 regions Dlords won is all in top 12, meaning we did have a fight for all our spots.

What TCol did very well was to contest a spot close to them and others should have followed their example.

I advocated at some point for a tournament that would keep the "normal" alliances meaning you could not attack allied spots and could help defend them as normal battles. That could hopefully weed out some of the way to many NAPs out there and confederates also if an alliance think they can do all by them self Wink

But maybe "hell" was to strong a word.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.