Total Powers of alliances in a chart (From 06.2010 till 02.2011)

---NEW POST---june 22 2011

All 4 alliances have fully recovered from the last war exceeding pre-war power levels.



---NEW POST---march 2011
Here is an updated version with data ranging back to october 2010 and forward till march 2011. I will be trying to collect data 2 times per month to make the graph more accurate.



---OLD POST---

I regularly copy paste alliance ranks from TOC-TIE summer war in 2010 onwards and today I decided to put it all in Excel and have a look how it will look like.

This is what came out:



From the table we can see clearly that Aderan Wars has four superpower which are much more powerful than all the other alliances. But we have seen many alliances rising up from small all the way to superpower. First Imperium in 2009, then Mujengan in beginning 2010 and at last in summer 2010 Marauders. I wonder what new superpowers will the future bring.

We can also see a sharp temporary decline in power for alliances which engage in alliance wars.

Although I had data on 30 alliances for each of these months I decided to keep track of only those which have more than 1 active member.
I have used a color which resembles the color used by each alliance, however for alliances that don't use color in their alliance names, I used a random color.
(It's also important to note that the data I have isn't from the 1st of each month, for some months I had no data until the 15th of the target month)

I also have some sporadic data on alliance total power all the way back to 2009, but not for all months.

From now on I am planning to collect alliance power data each month and update this chart.
If you have data on alliance powers from previous months saved somewhere, please post it here, so that I can input this information.

Muj really lost some power during that war :p. oh well it happens.

Maybe we can ask admin to have something like this, since he would have the most accurate information.

seaborgium wrote:Maybe we can ask admin to have something like this, since he would have the most accurate information.

it would be a pain because that's not something i specifically save. I'd need a script that could go, open each database backup i have and extract the required lines of records.

seaborgium wrote:Maybe we can ask admin to have something like this, since he would have the most accurate information.

Or we all look in our forums or saved data on our computers and maybe find more info. And we should make sure that the stats get saved regularly.

I managed to find more info, extensive alliance ranking from october till february 2010, and also a thread on the forums from april 2010 showing alliance powers of strongest alliances.

Currently I am still missing data from 01.2009 till including 09.2009.
Also missing date from 03.2010 and 05.2010.

I don't mean to have you go back... I mean from here forward.

hmm, wouldn't be hard

need to show alliance member count, I think thats signifigant

Well some of us would say that stats alone aren't much ... and that other things are more important, but yeah in general such things are fun to look at

Grats WR on the steep steady stat build - looks pretty good

ye this would be a cool gadget.

It would be great if it was possible to see this kind of graph ingame, where people can select start and end date, chose which alliances to display, and also chose a stat, for example membersize, population, total power or war experience.

It would be a nice thing to have.

It would be already enough if it gets saved in a format that allows easy input into excell graph could be made in excell too and it could be simply published on the forums.

they key your missing is average player size player size. 900 bil power loosk a lot but when u have 100 players it not nearly as close as it is to the next big 3 in terms of power per player

superkingtsob wrote:they key your missing is average player size player size. 900 bil power loosk a lot but when u have 100 players it not nearly as close as it is to the next big 3 in terms of power per player

Problem is I dont have data for player size. I personally dont care for average player size much, but I would love to see a chart which shows how populations of alliances were evolving. If you could get the info, it would be great.

Please consider that if there are 2 alliances with equal population, where one alliance has 5 times more members than the other, it doesnt mean that the one which has higher average population size is better.
There are two reasons why this isnt true:

1) it's unlikely that if one alliance has say 20 members and the other one 100, that the populations will be spread out evenly. It's likely that top 20 members of the 100 member alliance will have maybe 70 or 80% population of the whole alliance.

2) 100 members produce 5 times more attack turns than 20 members, and total alliance up has a much higher potential, because it's much easier for each of the 100 members to reach 10.000 up than for the 20 members in the other alliance reach 50.000 up each.

There are however also some advantages. Here two I can think of straight from my head:

1) It's harder to organise alliances which have much more members

2) It's easier for a huge player to fight against many small ones, due to technological advantage and much higher stats (In the short run). Small players wont be for example able to assassinate or sabotage a much bigger player.

Good way to try to create information specifically to make you look good, and to present information in a way that helps only you.

You present information that puts WR on top but everyone knows WR is the weakest alliance of the top alliances. Without the 10+vacated accounts and 25+ 0 def inactives WR would fall in ranks. If it also ever faces war it will fall further and harder then any other top alliance due to the poor account structuring of the alliance. As for alliances being harder to run the bigger they are,,,,,, I disagree. It all depends on the management. Sure its harder to run a dictatorship as WR is with only 1 man leading and doing everything. But breaking the alliance up into equal sized squads, and having multiple active leaders who work together and respect each other make running a large alliance often easier then running a dictatorship alliance because someone is always online and more heads are better then 1 when making critical decisions.

---NEW POST---
Here is an updated version with data ranging back to october 2010 and forward till march 2011. I will be trying to collect data 2 times per month to make the graph more accurate.

Special Agent 47 wrote:Good way to try to create information specifically to make you look good, and to present information in a way that helps only you.

You present information that puts WR on top but everyone knows WR is the weakest alliance of the top alliances. Without the 10+vacated accounts and 25+ 0 def inactives WR would fall in ranks. If it also ever faces war it will fall further and harder then any other top alliance due to the poor account structuring of the alliance. As for alliances being harder to run the bigger they are,,,,,, I disagree. It all depends on the management. Sure its harder to run a dictatorship as WR is with only 1 man leading and doing everything. But breaking the alliance up into equal sized squads, and having multiple active leaders who work together and respect each other make running a large alliance often easier then running a dictatorship alliance because someone is always online and more heads are better then 1 when making critical decisions.

Nice theory, but you forget that accounts on vacation don't influence total power at all.
btw, around 20th february before the war started WR has booted all inactives, which were around 45 people (Membersize dropped from 105 to 60). Our total power dropped from 1.035 billion to 1.005 billion. So your other claim that without inactives we would fall in ranks was also incorrect.

No doubt this graph makes WR look good, but it was not made for that purpose. Soon enough it will make Marauders look even better, so why the bad mood?

@kenzu

What part of SA47's post does it say vacated accounts influence total power? At the time of his post vacated accounts counted towards alliance army size. Now that vacated accounts doesn't affect army size, WR has dropped in the rankings. With that being said SA47 was correct in the fact that WR would drop in the rankings without those 11 vacated and 25+ zero defence accounts.

I would say he will get it one day, but I am to the point where I seriously doubt it anymore.

Paladius wrote:@kenzu

What part of SA47's post does it say vacated accounts influence total power? At the time of his post vacated accounts counted towards alliance army size. Now that vacated accounts doesn't affect army size, WR has dropped in the rankings. With that being said SA47 was correct in the fact that WR would drop in the rankings without those 11 vacated and 25+ zero defence accounts.

He didnt say it specifically, but since this thread is all about total power he gave me the impression that it would influence my chart.
Additinally I would like to add that WR has been rank 2 for most of the time and now after the update is still rank 2. We kicked 45 inactives and vacationed players armysize doesnt count towards alliance population anymore and we still have rank 2. This proves that SA47 wrong when he said that we would drop in ranks, because we havent. If we however drop in ranks in the future, then it will be due other circumstances, as the vacationed and inactives we had before cannot influence anything anymore.

Also, lets look at populations on the 1st february for february rank calculation:
1st
The Imperium
405.912.000 population (5.143 vacationed)
2nd
World Republic
363.674.000 population (20.723 vacationed)
3rd
The Marauders
313.185.000 population (4.911 vacationed)

If we count inactives, WR was rank 2 including inactives. If we ignore inactives then TIE has 400 mill, WR around 343 mill and TM around 307 mill.
Population rank for WR, TIE, and TM wouldn't have changed at all!

PS: 20.723 represents 20.723.000 population of players on vacation

lol, I wish Arne would come back off vacation. He was due back about 2 weeks go and still no sign TIE would then be back to rank 2 army size lol

I thought WR's overall rank was 1 at the time this thread was created. I guess i could be wrong. Even if WR didn't drop in the ranks, you still dropped below TM in the ranks.

He also neglects the fact Munjengan has suffered heavy damage, loss of players, and a massive drop in stat power. Along with TIE doing the same in losing power as they take on 3 other alliances at one time. So basicly the only reason WR has not fallen further, is because everyone else was fairly well beaten down before WR began its loss of power.


My point still stands, 1 on 1 WR would get slaughtered. Look at it from this veiw point(which is much like mine). WR had the most to lose in UU, Stat power, and members. Thats why they would fall the furthest and the fastest.


@ Kenzu,,,,
My original point was more towards the 35 million plus UU that was being counted towards your alliance size and rank. I knew very well vacationed accounts added 0 stat power. I do actually read forums, and ask questions. Instead of making assumptions like you do, maybe you should seek clarification from time to time. Maybe then you will understand more, and look foolish less.

Paladius wrote:I thought WR's overall rank was 1 at the time this thread was created. I guess i could be wrong. Even if WR didn't drop in the ranks, you still dropped below TM in the ranks.

Everyone dropped below TM in ranks, which is understandable, afterall there is a war going on and TM can be growing while all other big alliances are beating the crap out of each other.

I have updated alliances powers a couple days ago, before Mujengan Imperium war started.



Percentagewise, WR, Imperium, TM and Mujengan remain superpowers, much stronger than the other alliances, with Mujengan fast catching up to the strongest 3 alliances.

Very interesting! i never knew this existed! Now i can keep track of the imperium vs mujengan war without going through the massive amounts of text X.X

Well, this chart updates only once each 15 or 30 days. So it will not give detailed info on the war. You will only see fall in power and then a rise, seing that there was a war, however if the war lasts only a short time, then by the time the chart is updated the alliance could have fully rebuilt.