UK1 Server Analysis 4/9

    • Analysis

    By using our site, you accept the use of cookies to make your visit more pleasant, to offer you advertisements and contents tailored to your interests, to allow you to share content on social networks, and to create visit statistics for website optimisation. More information

    • UK1 Server Analysis 4/9

      All of us from Losers thought we'd give you a nice analysis of the top alliances. There is two parts to this analysis, the numbers and then a summary of how each alliance has proven themselves thus far. The latter of the two was done by my lovely other half Pyro. For those of you who don't know him, he is brutally honest. Enjoy! Leave your thoughts!

      Side note- For the averages, we did Server Averages, for all Except raiding. The average of raiding was based off of this week alone as we couldn't find the server totals for that as we didn't have time.

      To clarify we did take the averages of the combined alliances if they do have a wing. Ex: ~MFH+-MFH



      Based off the Averages above here is the rankings for the people who are too lazy to look at the table.

      Overall Ranks:

      Alliance: Rank:

      GotN 1

      MFH 4

      GG 5

      Betrayed 7

      -FOL- 6

      Losers 1

      ~Fox~ 8

      CTL 3



      -----------


      The next is an analysis done by Pyro of how he thinks you've done so far in proving yourself. He choose to do a 1-5 system as well.

      NW:



      MFH: 1.5/5.0 Large premade alliance that came as one of the favorites is definitely disappointing so far. Uncoordinated settling, sent some of their weaker members to settle in GotN area while strongest stayed central. It is very likely most of these weak account sent to settle around WW are going to delete pre arties. Another thing worth pointing out is that they have no team work at all, group of few players are trying to do something, on whole ally level it's nothing so far. They weren't haven't been able to neutralize GotN spawn hammers yet.

      GotN: 2.5/5.0 Outnumbered 2:1 by MFH, doing really good job in NW so far, but they have failed to adapt to the server. While MFH seems like a bunch of clueless randoms so far, GotN didn't use that chance to strike MFH much harder than they have so far. I would still give GotN advantage in this war if they'll show good organization, and if they'll be able to work as team they might even be able to take the server on the end. This mainly depends on them and if MFH is ready to do something serious or if they're still going to pretend they're alone in quad.

      SW:



      Betrayed: 2.0/5.0 To keep this short, whoever I've asked prior has had Betrayed as their favorites to take the server. Yet they're completely lost on how to deal with GG. Even though they knew GG started SW only to fight them, they've still decided to sim carelessly and underestimate what GG can actually do to them.

      GG: 3.0/5.0 Came to fight and they are getting the work done. But on the other hand, it doesn't seem like entire ally is working on the same page, while some members are here just to do some quick hits and delete it seems some are here to be here long term. Also there may be some dead weight in alliance. If they'd be able to get all 60 accounts working for the same goal, I believe they'd be able to neutralize Betrayed long term.
      (Higher mark than MFH only because they did more fighting back than MFH did, and is putting way more resources in early war than GotN is).

      SE:



      FOL: No serious wars so far so I won't be writing a review about them, I don't think they have a win condition, but if they play their cards right, they might be able to mess up plans of some alliances on the server.

      Losers: Won't be writing review of losers as I'm a member so I can't be unbiased. Either way we're too small to make an impact long term, so I don't think we matter too much in server analysis. (Rate us yourselves)


      NE:
      (Sorry About This One Couldn't Get Picture To Upload)
      c6516bdd4450388778a0940c344ec2fc

      FOX & CTL: No serious wars yet so I'm avoiding to leave a mark. Their win condition would be if they actually team up and just play for the end game while other quads fight their wars. If they do decide to fight each other I don't think either ally will have end game potential.



      Conclusion: Favorites have failed us, but that has given us an interesting plot to the server. Now there are no favorites and every ally has a chance of winning the server, it's up to them to make it happen.
      Images
      • analysis.png

        33.45 kB, 1,156×222, viewed 138 times
      Better half of Donald Putin Uk1
    • The numbers speak for themselves and so does the action so far in the game. Just because we didn't bow down to the all powerful MFH like the the other Server Analysis(which were biased) doesn't mean you have to be so sensitive :*
      Better half of Donald Putin Uk1
    • What I think of Losers? Honestly I respect your ally as a whole, I might think bad of one player but that doesn't mean i think bad of the ally, classic small but efficient team, sure not an endgame threat but you will have a lot of fun with uniques, building plans and chiefing starters cause as we can see you have a lot of troops
    • Your ranking system favours the small, tight alliances made up of experienced players. Having a high proportion of raiding accounts also doesn’t bode well for your defence or long term play. High raiders don’t tend to stay the course.

      It was an interesting read though. Thanks for sharing :)

      Stand out Award 2017 UK
    • Thanks for taking the time, interesting analysis. But, as Meme has noted, it has clear limitations given you're going purely off averages.

      If some of the larger alliances were to take 15 high pop accounts with high bonus 15cs and a half decent raid count they'd be stronger and higher ranked based on your quantums, which is an obvious flaw.

      Can't remember the last time I've seen so many analyses in such a short period on a single server!
    • I understand taking averages makes the analysis skewed towards smaller alliances, however if you take the raw ranks it flips it completely. Obviously a proper analyzation is near impossible as you'd have to go player by player and rank each one individually which would take ages. We are just providing a different way to look at the data.
      Better half of Donald Putin Uk1
    • Yes but the issue with your analysis is consolidated by the strength these figures would purport Losers have. In reality, however, Losers is 9 accounts, whose raid count is carried by three accounts and whose population is entirely skewed by Donald Putin.

      Interesting to look at nonetheless.
    • Happy wrote:

      Stay tuned for another unbiased analysis next week on UK1
      I wouldn't say it's biased necessarily. The figures weren't chosen specifically to show Losers at the top- averaging is a pretty standard method that's been used regularly here.

      Which stats/methods would you recommend?
      UK3 2018 knock.knock. (MM)
      UK1 2018 _Subotai (Losers)
    • v8escortmk2_UK wrote:

      Happy wrote:

      Stay tuned for another unbiased analysis next week on UK1
      I wouldn't say it's biased necessarily. The figures weren't chosen specifically to show Losers at the top- averaging is a pretty standard method that's been used regularly here.
      Which stats/methods would you recommend?
      I would never call copy pasting stats from ingame to a spreadsheet and calculating the average biased.
      It’s the analysis beneath I’m mocking.
      The fact you thought the opposite is quite funny tho
    • Happy wrote:

      v8escortmk2_UK wrote:

      Happy wrote:

      Stay tuned for another unbiased analysis next week on UK1
      I wouldn't say it's biased necessarily. The figures weren't chosen specifically to show Losers at the top- averaging is a pretty standard method that's been used regularly here.Which stats/methods would you recommend?
      I would never call copy pasting stats from ingame to a spreadsheet and calculating the average biased.It’s the analysis beneath I’m mocking.
      The fact you thought the opposite is quite funny tho
      I didn't even consider the remarks underneath the stats to be honest. The chat above was concerning the stats so I assumed you were also talking about those.

      The remarks are clearly provocative and should probably be taken with a pinch of salt lol! There wasn't any comment on Losers themselves so it's not as biased as is being made out tbh.
      UK3 2018 knock.knock. (MM)
      UK1 2018 _Subotai (Losers)