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  <1 567
Author
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 02:17
Anjire, those are indicators of square activity, they reflect the ammount of attention on a square, it's a rough indicator on the difficulty of a square. 
Average is also a good indicator, if you do not have to move troops to defende a square you can use them in other places or just move them when you secured the square.
Comparing them with population was an answer for some replies i readed and is another rough indicator of the work the alliance did compared with the size.
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:


#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?

(Perrigor miss too)

With this i do not want to say we were the best nor than others were bad.
We did mistakes, but securing 3 of the top squares was not a joke at all and required work not only on 3 squares ;)






Edited by Drejan - 31 Mar 2012 at 02:29
Back to Top
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 03:15
Just a disclaimer:  My position on your stats in no way reflects my opinion of any alliances contribution to the tournament.  I believe from the response here and on GC that everyone put forth a tremendous effort.

That said, I have to disagree with your stance that your stats are a good indicator of activity on the square.  At best, they are a weak hindsight indicator barely reflective of actual troop distribution/allocation needs to a square during the  tournament. 

The only real gauge at the time was the # of incoming yellow or green shields to a square either of which could be an attack of unknown value from 1 to 30K plus troops.  This, in my opinion,  would be a better indicator of an alliances mindset during the tournament for the allocation of troops/attention paid to a square. 

I will restate again that the way in order to get an apples to apples comparison of xp/square/population stat would be to sum the xp and population contribution per alliance involved on a square by square basis.  

~Anjire
Back to Top
Kumomoto View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 04:35
I think that our Dwarven friends did an absolutely Stalwart job and my hats off to both them & my fellow Harmless ones on being somewhat less than... ;) in a truly fun tourney!
Back to Top
Ander View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 08:58
Originally posted by Drejan Drejan wrote:

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.


I agree with Drejan that the xp on squares is a good indicator of difficulty - It is true atleast on the squares held by DLord where the battles were mostly between the same two parties, one of them being DLord. One could say that some squares like wolgast doesnt reflect the amount of effort put in by a single alliance, that is true but that only highlights the battles where the race was between two alliances.

One of the reasons why H faced less resistance is that every alliance had more reasons to fight with the ones trailing right behind them in the ranking. If Invictus were focused to bring down H squares, they might have brought the H's 12 squares down to something, but probably at the cost of their almost certain second place. If crows had gone for direct confrontation on H tiles, they would have lost the third place to ~peace~. I think one of the major reasons why ~peace~ came behind crows is that, peace were fighting with Invictus on quite a few squares. It is very risky to go in direct confrontation with a stronger opponent, when others are just waiting to overtake you.


Back to Top
Mr Damage View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 592
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 10:51
Well put Ander.
Back to Top
Gossip Boy View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 259
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 12:30
Peace fought with invictus in elijal at a large scale and in keppen on a smaller scale(for the last 5 days) and yeah invictus attacked and killed nearly 150k of peace cav in middle kindom and they din't even wanted to hold it.they were having fun i guess  Wink
For me peace fought brilliantly but were outdone by some smart strategy from crows (they went for as much as 15 squares during the last 5 days) and ofcourse some help from their confeds (its debatable how much it helps you have to still defend the square but in this specific case the squares were remote so they were lucky) 
Peace also made a mistake in going for turalia (i know there was a bug but still)absaroke had the geographical advantage as well as a good strategy going on that square + it was again a plain as was Mid. kingdom and peace suffered a lot of casualties in trying to hold that square



Edited by Gossip Boy - 31 Mar 2012 at 12:31
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: 31 Mar 2012 at 17:30
I agree with you Kumo... I know that H? truly Harm(ed) - less than they could have :)
See how I did that .. turned Harmless into Harm(ed)-less.. Ok, I'll shut now.

Anyway well done to all. Stats can show various things and these stats give us general information (not necessarily specific information regarding alliances and what they did on any given square) to note interesting aspects.


Edited by belargyle - 31 Mar 2012 at 17:36
Back to Top
SugarFree View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 09 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 350
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2012 at 17:49
Originally posted by belargyle belargyle wrote:

I agree with you Kumo... I know that H? truly Harm(ed) - less than they could have :)
See how I did that .. turned Harmless into Harm(ed)-less.. Ok, I'll shut now.

Anyway well done to all. Stats can show various things and these stats give us general information (not necessarily specific information regarding alliances and what they did on any given square) to note interesting aspects.
that's about the worst pun i ever heard!
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: 31 Mar 2012 at 18:07
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

I think that our Dwarven friends did an absolutely Stalwart job


*GROAN*


@ Bel: LOL




Edited by Llyorn Of Jaensch - 31 Mar 2012 at 18:08
"ouch...best of luck."
HonoredMule
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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