World War I

[DeletedUser]

I'm too lazy to print the stats myself, but whats the stats of coalition V's W1N this week?

The sides (as I see it):

W1N,LRAG F, T4H F, V's F.P.B, Ak, Flux, ORC F and ~R~

FW F Are fighting both FPB and T4H as far as I know.

 

[DeletedUser]

Stats for the last week


Side 1:
Tribes: LRAG LRAGFO LRAGKA W1N T4H T4H-W
Players:

Side 2:
Tribes: F.P.B AK Flux ORC ORC² ~R~
Players:

Timeframe: Last week

Total conquers:

Side 1: 1,838
Side 2: 1,265
Difference: 573

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 395
Side 2: 122
Difference: 273

Points value of total conquers:

Side 1: 14,169,490
Side 2: 8,573,231
Difference: 5,596,259

Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 3,226,655
Side 2: 1,034,713
Difference: 2,191,942

This was a little quick - I may have missed something - or someone. If so, apologies, but I think it gives the general drift...

 

[DeletedUser7092]

wow, graphs. thanks for that

 

[DeletedUser4320]

This is interesting.

The last week W1N alone has taken almost twice as many villages against the Freedom Fighters than the rest of W1N's puppets has done combined.

And yet the representatives for the LRAG and T4H family continues to paint it out as they are doing what is best for their tribes.

Funny is who funny says as the saying goes.

 

[DeletedUser6496]

Our Wars aren't going too badly either. I also present our results in the media of bar graphs.

Side 1:
Tribes: IWL
Players:
Side 2:
Tribes: F.P.B *FW*
Players:
Timeframe: Last month
Total conquers against opposite side:
Side 1: 126
Side 2: 5
Difference: 121

Points value of total conquers against opposite side:
Side 1: 1,147,281
Side 2: 19,822
Difference: 1,127,459

 

[DeletedUser]

This is interesting.

The last week W1N alone has taken almost twice as many villages against the Freedom Fighters than the rest of W1N's puppets has done combined.

And yet the representatives for the LRAG and T4H family continues to paint it out as they are doing what is best for their tribes.

Funny is who funny says as the saying goes.

Interesting, but what are the overall growth stats?

Side 1:
Tribes: W1N
Players:

Side 2:
Tribes: LRAG LRAGFO LRAGKA
Players:

Timeframe: Last week

Total conquers:

Side 1: 693
Side 2: 430
Difference: 263

Points value of total conquers:

Side 1: 5,935,150
Side 2: 2,491,334
Difference: 3,443,816

Side 1:
Tribes: W1N
Players:

Side 2:
Tribes: T4H T4H-W
Players:

Timeframe: Last week

Total conquers:

Side 1: 693
Side 2: 701
Difference: 8

Points value of total conquers:

Side 1: 5,944,661
Side 2: 5,624,093
Difference: 320,568

 

[DeletedUser7596]

Yes good job taking out our inactives who got bored sitting on a border stacked with troops from hundreds of former barbarian towns & from your 'safe' border with W1N making progress almost impossible.

Side 1:
Tribes: IWL
Players:

Side 2:
Tribes: 1500 Point Barbarians
Players:



Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 1500000000
Side 2: 0
Difference: 0

 

[DeletedUser6496]

Cry me a river.
If your players got bored then that's your tribes fault for not organising a large enough offensive against us. Troops are there to be used and die if necessary, if your guys aren't prepared to use them, then chin up, they can always be rebuilt.
If they went inactive then once again that is your tribes fault for not getting their account sat or internally nobling them quick enough. And kicking those players who're getting a kicking off of us doesn't make them inactive, it just shows up your tribes lack of mutual support for each other . Not all those you've kicked are inactive, I can assure you of that. It's hard to defend when you're a collective of one man bands.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is interesting.

The last week W1N alone has taken almost twice as many villages against the Freedom Fighters than the rest of W1N's puppets has done combined.

And yet the representatives for the LRAG and T4H family continues to paint it out as they are doing what is best for their tribes.

Funny is who funny says as the saying goes.

Sadly the list of sides you have compiled are woefully inacccurate for the T4H families list of enemies. T4H are at war with the *FW* family, W1N are not. W1N are at war with F.P.B, AK and Flux, T4H are not (In some ways disproving your whole puppet argument as well - otherwise by your logic we would be at war with these other 3 tribes regardless). Your stats also don't show the ex-TR members that are not in the tribes listed nor those from TR that hit delete, further biasing the statisitics.

Hardly an accurate way to compare and contrast data, its just being presented in a biased way to display the results you wish in regard to your statement of W1N conq more than LRAG and T4H.

A better way to present the data has been shown by Chubbs (cheers for that).

 

[DeletedUser4320]

Mr Thunderhorse,

If you had read the thread you would have found that the list of enemies was compiled by marekchmiel, not me. But why care about facts when you can make things up, eh?

And how in the holy macarony does T4H and W1N not sharing all the same set of tribes of which are attacked ingame being a proof that you are not their puppets?

I can understand why you want to use the total amount of conquers as a measure of growth though, all the time a quick check of T4H conquers last week revealed almost 50% internals.

:lol:

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes good job taking out our inactives who got bored sitting on a border stacked with troops from hundreds of former barbarian towns & from your 'safe' border with W1N making progress almost impossible.

This is useful information! thanks yous verys muchs! :icon_biggrin:

 

[DeletedUser2779]

Dubby could you please supply evidence to state 50% internals for T4H for last week please

 

[DeletedUser4320]

Tribalwars Tribe Profile: FOUR HORSEMEN - CONQUEST (conquers)

 

[DeletedUser1942]

Dubby's WRONG - these are the stats for the past week, its shows T4H fams internals are just over a third (33%) of there conquers - not the 50% which dubby had stated...........

Side 1:
Tribes: T4H T4H-W =T4H=
Players:

Side 2:
Tribes: T4H T4H-W =T4H=
Players:

Timeframe: Last week

Total conquers:

Side 1: 641
Side 2: 641
Difference: 0

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 224
Side 2: 224
Difference: 0

Points value of total conquers:

Side 1: 5,225,333
Side 2: 5,225,333
Difference: 0

Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 2,113,729
Side 2: 2,113,729
Difference: 0

 

[DeletedUser2779]

sorry im confused

when do players that arent in your tribe become internal

by definition they are external surely

 

[DeletedUser4320]

Dubby's WRONG - these are the stats for the past week, its shows T4H fams internals are just over a third (33%) of there conquers - not the 50% which dubby had stated...........

Stutzy, I had only looked at T4H, not the whole family and there 178 of 376 conquers where from the T4H family, which equals to 47.3%

Also, I included players that had been with the family before kicked and nobled, like MaelStormer and stavrossteve. I used the conquer list to sum up, but I can put it into a war stat scheme for you if you like:

Side 1:
Tribes: T4H
Players:

Side 2:
Tribes: T4H =T4H= T4H-W
Players: stavrossteve MaelStormer

Timeframe: 12/07/2010 14:30:00 to 19/07/2010 14:30:00

Total conquers:

Side 1: 376
Side 2: 698
Difference: 322

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 178
Side 2: 65
Difference: 113

Points value of total conquers:

Side 1: 3,052,919
Side 2: 5,582,532
Difference: 2,529,613

Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 1,601,197
Side 2: 603,122
Difference: 998,075

 

[DeletedUser4320]

sorry im confused

when do players that arent in your tribe become internal

by definition they are external surely

I know that mathematics can be a tough subject, so don't be too hard on your self. The link shows all conquers by T4H, to extract the share of internals you sum up the ones where the conquered village come from a member of your family (+internals that are kicked like MaelStormer and stavrossteve) divide by the total number of conquers and voila you have a number.

In this case the share of internals is 178/376 which is almost 50%, as claimed.

 

[DeletedUser]

I know that mathematics can be a tough subject, so don't be too hard on your self. The link shows all conquers by T4H, to extract the share of internals you sum up the ones where the conquered village come from a member of your family (+internals that are kicked like MaelStormer and stavrossteve) divide by the total number of conquers and voila you have a number.

In this case the share of internals is 178/376 which is almost 50%, as claimed.

MrMule, i am no internal. I was kicked over an "issue" blown out of all proportion, but that doesn't need to be discussed here.

Im not fairing well (Who would?), but all a part of the game, and just playing for the 'lulz' now :icon_biggrin:

 

[DeletedUser]

Since when did internalising villages that belong to inactives, players that were kicked (for reasons that will not be disclosed), left of their own free will or account merges a bad thing? I'd far rather get them in the hands of active players and contributing to the war effort as soon as can be, rather than let them build up or be left as weak links for other tribe(s) to take advantage of (far to often this will be the down fall of a tribe in the end).

Things like this happen its the ebb and flow of the game (check any major tribes history and for that fact some of the Top 20 players) as players leave or RL things take over - as a tribe you can never plan for these things. All you can do is take the situation in hand and get on with it quickly as possible to then return to a better fighting shape.

As stated and the stats prove even with this diversion of resources we are still ahead in our war fronts and to me that is all that counts. Once we've got these internals out the way things will pick up again I assure you.

 

[DeletedUser4320]

Since when did internalising villages that belong to inactives, players that were kicked (for reasons that will not be disclosed), left of their own free will or account merges a bad thing?

No one has said that it is a bad thing and you arguing that is a straw man argument as the saying goes.The point is that it isn't growth per se to noble villages that already is a part of your empire and thus your claim that using total conquers as the best way of illustrating growth is clearly erroneous.

As stated and the stats prove even with this diversion of resources we are still ahead in our war fronts and to me that is all that counts. Once we've got these internals out the way things will pick up again I assure you.

Yes, you are ahead of your enemies, but lagging behind W1N only further solidifying W1N's hold on uk1.

Well done.