StarGateWars Forums

LMAO...like svarun said before...TDL is not in top 20 alliances but it's average army is way over the average u got..that's why it isn't accurate at all...and TDL isn't the only alliance btw...

Mukasa wrote:LMAO...like svarun said before...TDL is not in top 20 alliances but it's average army is way over the average u got..that's why it isn't accurate at all...and TDL isn't the only alliance btw...

Yeah, I understand that, but once again as I stated, it is sampling. Thus, it isnt as accurate as surveying the entire population would be. As I said, the coefficient of correlation between army size and rank is -0.7. This is a good indicator but it DOES NOT show a strong association with it. There are many alliances that are huge that are not in the top and TDL is top.

Also, TDL has 20 members. 611 members were surveyed. Let's assume for instance that the average army size for TDL is 60 mill (Ball park estimate).

Thus, the new total members is 631 and new average is approximately 41 mill. Very little change. In a large population, there is not much change.

I will post the requested graphs because I'm cool like that.

kinnell6 wrote:

Mukasa wrote:LMAO...like svarun said before...TDL is not in top 20 alliances but it's average army is way over the average u got..that's why it isn't accurate at all...and TDL isn't the only alliance btw...

Yeah, I understand that, but once again as I stated, it is sampling. Thus, it isnt as accurate as surveying the entire population would be. As I said, the coefficient of correlation between army size and rank is -0.7. This is a good indicator but it DOES NOT show a strong association with it. There are many alliances that are huge that are not in the top and TDL is top.

Also, TDL has 20 members. 611 members were surveyed. Let's assume for instance that the average army size for TDL is 60 mill (Ball park estimate).

Thus, the new total members is 631 and new average is approximately 41 mill. Very little change. In a large population, there is not much change.

I will post the requested graphs because I'm cool like that.

from 40m to 41m might not be yeah..but then there is like few more alliances a bit weaker than TDL but still strong..and that does change it....ur awesome that u even started all this....and i'm kinda happy at least someone is doing something great for SGW comunity,although it's merely informing us about SGW army size.

Judochop wrote:

Semper wrote:you have far to much free time on your hands.

oh nooby

lol..no, just someone with more meaningful things in my life then working out the top 20 alliances, their total armysize and other things..I can think of many..watching grass grow..watching paint dry, staring at traffic half dazed, watching golf or cricket, picking my nose, picking up tiny pieces of stuff from the floor with tweezers and a magnifying glass. lol.

But thanks to this guy, I now have time to do all those things. Still though, at least it is remotely interesting (in the smallest intent) what he has done...

now we all just have to decide whether this counts as posting someone's in-game stats or not.

Very intresting work, Id like to pat you on the back kinnell6. A job well done.

BW

Mukasa wrote:

kinnell6 wrote:

Mukasa wrote:LMAO...like svarun said before...TDL is not in top 20 alliances but it's average army is way over the average u got..that's why it isn't accurate at all...and TDL isn't the only alliance btw...

Yeah, I understand that, but once again as I stated, it is sampling. Thus, it isnt as accurate as surveying the entire population would be. As I said, the coefficient of correlation between army size and rank is -0.7. This is a good indicator but it DOES NOT show a strong association with it. There are many alliances that are huge that are not in the top and TDL is top.

Also, TDL has 20 members. 611 members were surveyed. Let's assume for instance that the average army size for TDL is 60 mill (Ball park estimate).

Thus, the new total members is 631 and new average is approximately 41 mill. Very little change. In a large population, there is not much change.

I will post the requested graphs because I'm cool like that.

from 40m to 41m might not be yeah..but then there is like few more alliances a bit weaker than TDL but still strong..and that does change it....ur awesome that u even started all this....and i'm kinda happy at least someone is doing something great for SGW comunity,although it's merely informing us about SGW army size.

Mathematical surveying will always leave an exception. I could show you alliances that are ranked below the top 20 that have a 70mill average. Then you could turn it around and find a few top 20 alliances that have an average of like 20mill. You can't survey everyone, so you use a sample. I would say he's done one hell of a job finding a good sample. Just because you didn't get in the spot light doesn't mean that he's wrong.

Semper wrote:lol..no, just someone with more meaningful things in my life then working out the top 20 alliances, their total armysize and other things..I can think of many..watching grass grow..watching paint dry, staring at traffic half dazed, watching golf or cricket, picking my nose, picking up tiny pieces of stuff from the floor with tweezers and a magnifying glass. lol.

Actually that data he's gathered is rather valuable because he now knows what alliances produce the most and have the most "build-able power". Since strength is not defined by stats but instead by income, army size, and will power, he's got two out of three and I'd say he can take a reasonable guess on the third.

Semper wrote:now we all just have to decide whether this counts as posting someone's in-game stats or not.

adding more thought to this 'TheRook'.

And tok'ra, are all those stats available to everyone else? I could find maybe a few thousand people who wouldnt know half those army sizes.

I have a BME test is 10 hours and load of circuits, statistics, diff-eq, org chem classes after that. And then I will get plastered. And then, Tok'ra, I will post the graphs.

Hmm... maybe instead of taking the top 20 by total power, take the top 20 by average power per member...

this way, nobody can complain about alliance being small and thus not in the top 20...

lol..then anyone may not have the stats in the first place (as the said person is on ppt) to post and thereby the rule is pointless. It mean at any point, you shouldnt post the stats of people, I have seen it punished countless times on these forums, and this thread is breaking the rules.

I bet you any amount of money the admin who wrote that was using i/e in the wrong context, making it mean ' in example' (i.e is actually representative for latin words meaning 'that is', but few people use it as such.)

Mods, admins have aggressively made the point known for two and a half years that the posting of ANY ingame stats that are NOT your own is against the rules. and army size is a statistic.

ive proven my point.
man, why are we arguing. im going to bed.

I have to say that i.e. is just giving an example - the key words in the rule are 'not readily available to others' - and since army sizes aren't readily available, then they can't be posted.

Some people have too much free time on their hands....

surprisingly james, that was my first reaction!

Epic wrote:Some people have too much free time on their hands....

And some people enjoy intellectually stimulating themselves during their free times. I can see you dont.