For Whom The Bell Tolls Infamy vs TEA/P-W/WAR

Sinful Super Unicorn

Active Member
Side 1:
Tribes: TEA
Side 2:
Tribes: Infamy

Timeframe: 14/02/2017 02:30:30 to 16/02/2017 13:53:41

Total conquers:

Side 1: 245
Side 2: 203
Difference: 42



Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 3
Side 2: 3
Difference: 0



Points value of total conquers:

Side 1: 1,629,068
Side 2: 1,385,896
Difference: 243,172



Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 19,852
Side 2: 28,630
Difference: 8,778




After War Declaration these stats are not really supporting any OPS going on except some talks in between both tribe members are happening (what bird whispered)

Mostly when one tribe declare war on another we saw Huge OPS just after or before the declaration, if it is already under way update us the status, we can wait till the nukes lands on remote far villages.


BIP i think from here you need to be more cautious as any day we can see AM formed, These are the almost same bunch who was behind AM in w83. Possibly this war declaration is part of diplomacy to segregate the members to recruit, Co-play or Nobled out.
You're missing the fact that the TEA coalition contains two tribes other than TEA. Here are war stats if you look at Infamy vs. TEA, WAR, and P-W:

Side 1:
Tribes: Infamy
Side 2:
Tribes: TEA, P-W, W A R

Timeframe: Last week

Total conquers:

Side 1: 772
Side 2: 1,215
Difference: 443



Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 30
Side 2: 7
Difference: 23



Points value of total conquers:

Side 1: 5,881,645
Side 2: 6,020,598
Difference: 138,953



Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 215,339
Side 2: 52,959
Difference: 162,380

 

kitmarlowe

Non-stop Poster
this world is HUGE fun.
we have the best world.

trump jokes aside, i am loving playing this world. thanks everyone for making TW great again!

<3
 

Mithrae

Still Going Strong
You're missing the fact that the TEA coalition contains two tribes other than TEA. Here are war stats if you look at Infamy vs. TEA, WAR, and P-W:

Side 1:
Tribes: Infamy
Side 2:
Tribes: TEA, P-W, W A R

Timeframe: Last week

Total conquers:

Side 1: 772
Side 2: 1,215
Difference: 443



Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 30
Side 2: 7
Difference: 23



Points value of total conquers:

Side 1: 5,881,645
Side 2: 6,020,598
Difference: 138,953



Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 215,339
Side 2: 52,959
Difference: 162,380

Fair call. And for the sake of completeness, here are the stats between tribes in the top 10 with which TEA has exchanged more than 20 conquests in the past month, plus newcomer Infamy:

Side 1:
Tribes: BiP, -DC-, FARM, Q-EST, Kraken, Infamy
Side 2:
Tribes: TEA, P-W, W A R

Timeframe: Last week

Total conquers:

Side 1: 1,610
Side 2: 1,214
Difference: 396



Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 157
Side 2: 249
Difference: 92



Points value of total conquers:

Side 1: 9,193,881
Side 2: 6,023,629
Difference: 3,170,252



Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 1,201,769
Side 2: 1,787,166
Difference: 585,397

 

TheHans

Master Commander 2016
I mean that would look more legit if there was an actual relation in place with Kraken and QEST.

Regarding WAR, they are part of the coalition as admitted by the Duke (The one not sat). Even if it's a NAP.
 

Sinful Super Unicorn

Active Member
Fair call. And for the sake of completeness, here are the stats between tribes in the top 10 with which TEA has exchanged more than 20 conquests in the past month, plus newcomer Infamy:

Side 1:
Tribes: BiP, -DC-, FARM, Q-EST, Kraken, Infamy
Side 2:
Tribes: TEA, P-W, W A R

Timeframe: Last week

Total conquers:

Side 1: 1,610
Side 2: 1,214
Difference: 396



Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 157
Side 2: 249
Difference: 92



Points value of total conquers:

Side 1: 9,193,881
Side 2: 6,023,629
Difference: 3,170,252



Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 1,201,769
Side 2: 1,787,166
Difference: 585,397


You counted Q-EST as being on the opposing side of your coalition. Not only do we have no diplomatic relations with them, DC, or Kraken; Q-EST is WAR's academy tribe, it says so right in the profile of both tribes. You're counting your ally's academy tribe, who has probably been supporting your tribe as well, as an enemy.
 

Mithrae

Still Going Strong
You counted Q-EST as being on the opposing side of your coalition. Not only do we have no diplomatic relations with them, DC, or Kraken; Q-EST is WAR's academy tribe, it says so right in the profile of both tribes. You're counting your ally's academy tribe, who has probably been supporting your tribe as well, as an enemy.
As I said, I counted tribes in the top 10 which had exchanged more than 20 conquests with TEA in the past month. In the case of Q-EST, that's been 15-13 conquests in TEA's favour since January 18th. But if you believe that there's a friendly relationship, then there'd be no conquests between the tribes so it wouldn't skew the stats anyway. It's been only 1-1 between Q-EST and TEA in the past week, and 0-0 between Q-EST and Infamy. Feel free to critique my methodology, but you'll at least acknowledge that it obviously makes little difference either way? :p
 
Last edited:

TheHans

Master Commander 2016
Either way you've included an academy of WAR on the side of your enemy? I scratch my head sometimes.

WAR, PW and Tea - All have diplomatic ties and at war with Infamy

Infamy and BiP - Have diplomatic ties

Kraken, Qest and DC - No ties with Infamy.

Farm - Can be included with Infamy though. the recruitment should now replace that since the war broke out? But previously no diplomatic ties.

Hope that spells it out nice and simple
 

Balian in Ibelin

Still Going Strong
Either way you've included an academy of WAR on the side of your enemy? I scratch my head sometimes.

WAR, PW and Tea - All have diplomatic ties and at war with Infamy

Infamy and BiP - Have diplomatic ties

Kraken, Qest and DC - No ties with Infamy.

Farm - Can be included with Infamy though. the recruitment should now replace that since the war broke out? But previously no diplomatic ties.

Hope that spells it out nice and simple

 

Mithrae

Still Going Strong
Either way you've included an academy of WAR on the side of your enemy? I scratch my head sometimes.
I'm happy to be informed of that. I just used publicly-available information (which doesn't always include tribe profiles, since I'm just a co-player) for the tribes Infamy declared on, verse the tribes TEA had already been fighting over the past month. I think that if a newcomer joins in on top of existing conflicts, it is fair to make note of those existing foes regardless of whether or not the newcomer has ties to them. And academy or not, 15-13 conquests between TEA and Q-EST most likely is fighting, isn't it? Or at least was; for the past week it's only 1-1, so maybe something changed more recently, or they can be disregarded anyway if the conquests remain so low.

So that would mean (as Natticus posted) Infamy joined in with 30 conquests and 7 losses since their Tuesday declaration against TEA, P-W and WAR... who in the past week have had 241 conquests and 126 losses against BiP, -DC-, FARM and Kraken (248-156 including Infamy).
 
Last edited:

Mithrae

Still Going Strong
Glad to see it did not take long for us to go full dumbass with the stats already.
We could certainly fixate only on Infamy's successes against W A R, if your stats are really that precious to you *hugs*

Natticus didn't feel the Infamy-TEA stats posted by Raavna (3-3) were enough, and very reasonably posted a slightly broader perspective of what Infamy has been up to. So I offered a slightly broader perspective still; one which tells us a bit about the progress of the world as a whole, not just Infamy's ~28 conquests against W A R.
 
Last edited:

Michael Corleone.

Part of the Furniture
Last I checked this is the thread where infamy declared on. W A R, P-W and TEA. So he posted relevant stats to what the thread is originally about.

Now if I was natticus i would have also done stats a little differently and show infamy vs. all 3 tribes but also show it individually (infamy vs war, infamy vs tea, etc)

Perhaps you should create a thread for the stats you want to post which barely make sense to begin with. You talk about natticus supposedly not being happy about the stats raavna posted (not true), perhaps the one who wasn't happy is yourself. But yeah he's only posting stats relevant to the actual thread.
 

Mithrae

Still Going Strong
I argue for the sake of arguing - judging by many of your posts, I'm pretty sure you can understand the urge. Arguing about TW is about as interesting and with about the same level of real-world impact as debating religion or politics or climate science :p

Phrase it however you want, the thread is about Infamy jumping in on top of existing conflicts against TEA etc. I really don't see anything wrong with that - there was nothing backhanded or unexpected about it, and the odds are not overwhelmingly stacked to one side or the other. But you do seem to have a problem with that fact being reiterated in this thread. Why is that?
 

Michael Corleone.

Part of the Furniture
As I said, this thread is about infamy vs WAR/PW/TEA. You are free to make a thread about all of teas existing conflicts. But now seeing you argue for the sake of it, i won't entertain the idea of responding to you again.
 

Mithrae

Still Going Strong
True, but I'm also free to point that fact out in this thread. And yes, choosing silence is probably much wiser than getting all touchy and throwing insults over it ;)
 

Raavna

Still Going Strong

I dont know anything , i post without thinking first and still proved myself and my analysis in w83 and w88, SO just get relax, calm and listen this music.


 

Seven Devils

Non-stop Poster
True, but I'm also free to point that fact out in this thread. And yes, choosing silence is probably much wiser than getting all touchy and throwing insults over it ;)
Wise, maybe. But not nearly as entertaining for the audience. I'd say you guys' entertainment skills are mediocre at best.

I mean, sure your stats were completely out of place. But it was not quite enough to incite any angry response. You should've followed it up with a ridiculous statement like:

"So as you can see here from these very relevant stats, the TEA coalition is actually winning"