Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

potthead

Numbers / Overpop / Time on Mission / Player engagement : A Potthead Theory

Recommended Posts

potthead

Now that figures are out for a couple of campaign.. very interesting to see.. Thanks and S! to @choad for taking the time out of his own day to make this tool! 

The Absolute number who have logged into a side has been more or less the same... (indeed in the last 2 maps, the winning side had less numbers ... but WAY more TOM from each player) 47% vs 53% and 48% vs %52 ... 

I am sure there are many reasons that can be made, i.e green tags logging in to losing side and logging out maybe? or perhaps veterans logging in and are not motivated enough to follow through .. or lack of HC to place AOs and hence numbers not staying.. none of that is the subject of what I have been talking about in this theory however..

still very limited data with 2 maps so far but be interesting to see what comes out after say 10-20 maps.

S!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gavalink

Very rarely have I read every post on a topic. I have on this one. Good comments and work all around! S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karellean
On 05/03/2019 at 6:41 PM, potthead said:

Now that figures are out for a couple of campaign.. very interesting to see.. Thanks and S! to @choad for taking the time out of his own day to make this tool! 

The Absolute number who have logged into a side has been more or less the same... (indeed in the last 2 maps, the winning side had less numbers ... but WAY more TOM from each player) 47% vs 53% and 48% vs %52 ... 

I am sure there are many reasons that can be made, i.e green tags logging in to losing side and logging out maybe? or perhaps veterans logging in and are not motivated enough to follow through .. or lack of HC to place AOs and hence numbers not staying.. none of that is the subject of what I have been talking about in this theory however..

still very limited data with 2 maps so far but be interesting to see what comes out after say 10-20 maps.

S!

 

Sup Folks, I still pass by once in a while.

Pott:  I did the overall players count thing way back in the C60's & C70's era, when trying to confirm the "axis bench" theory.  I also did it over maybe as many as a dozen campaigns...

I have no direct idea about breakdowns now... But from what I have read in this thread... the pattern appears to be similar to my findings back then.

Boring: I did this by scraping the killed/killedby stats of the top 100 sortie players, and merging all the data into a spread sheet.. and yes it took a LONG time to compile without a formal tool.

I went looking for the sheets, I did.. cant find them, lost in the ghosts of hard drive's past, however I recollect the following:


-- Axis did have a significantly higher number of total players, compared to Allied,  It was about a 55%/45% Split roughly across the duration.

-- Total pop was over 2000 players (Both sides added together)  over the course of a campaign back in the early 60's, it tapered off consistently throughout the 60's, taking a more significant plunge in the early 70's when TZ3 started to fall apart in earnest.

-- Never did Allied have more total players than Axis
-- In allied wins the number narrowed, closer to 52%/48%, but always in Axis Majority

-- Allied wins were usually driven by a core of 30-40 players pulling insanely LUDACRIOUS amounts of sorties and TOM, if they were not active, it ended up an Axis win

-- BOTH SIDES - required some key leaders to be quite active to see a win.  Leadership being required is a constant on either side.
-- Axis wins often saw the unique players per side imbalance up to almost 60%/40%.

-- Essentially for an Allied win, it took a real concerted effort from Leadership and its vet playerbase... Axis just needed the leaders in place more than anything, the extra depth of player numbers, meant not so much effort was placed on a few.


I also looked at the side switcher factor, given I had a series of rolling campaign stats... and was absolutely stunned when I found so few people actually swapped sides. Between campaigns.... (Less than 4-5% of people swapping across) and nearly nobody, during a campaign...    However what was of note was those swapping were often "known" tags... the players you recognise, and groan, when they kill you... which is why the issue appeared perhaps larger then it actually was.

From experience of leading both sides at some point or another, I always found it easier to lead Axis, mainly due to the numbers depth...  But the way the map links fall in the middle of the map were easier to drive as well, with the Liege Pivot, and things like the Wellin-Boullion link... As well as a steady number of choke points to obtain as you move westwards... You could grind it out as Axis...  Allies, mostly needed to snatch n grab a swag of towns in reasonably quick succession, to be able to form a defendable line, before consolidating for period.   

As far as TZ3 goes... I perservered for a long time in the face of falling numbers....  Once it got down to about 30 a side, simply couldn't really do anything... 4 decent guys could snuff out an attack setup in around 5-10 minutes...  And given at that level of pop your lucky if you find 2 people willing to set anything up... It ends up in a constant state of setting up attacks, and players just logging out during the 20-30 minute windows that constantly occurred during objective shifts...   I compensated for a while by having about 4-5 accounts of my own (Pott does this as well)... and driving multiple trucks at once... and whilst FRU's could be rebuilt by ML's that helped maintain spawn points... (That mechanic had its own issues of course, no argument for it being gone, but it did prop up TZ3) ..  Eventually though ... even that was not enough...  

Anyhoo, Im heading off the topic...
So stay south of Antwerp and have fun...

S!

Kare

Edited by karellean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall

Howdee K!

 

Folks, K is effectively the Allied counterpart to Potthead, and along with a part-time acolyte in Z held up the Allied end of TZ3 for years during the post-Anzacs period.   He singlehandedly kept the TZ3 lights on and the boogie man away for CRS Rats 1.0, who IMO did not give him proper due for his efforts and value to the community and company for the simple fixes he asked for.

Listen carefully to EVERYTHING he says, just like Potthead.

When I have been pushing Pop Neutrality, I have been thinking largely of K's quixotic fight against the inevitable. 

 

K, Rats 2.0 have actually instituted pop neutrality of a sort, cap timers driven by population mostly.  They monkey with it because as you might imagine, crutching on one primary timer tool creates too much frustration for the overpopped.  Please look into that and we can take it up in a separate thread, I don't want to taint Potthead's excellent thread with the likely poisonous posts that would follow doing it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob
6 hours ago, karellean said:

However what was of note was those swapping were often "known" tags... the players you recognise

we use side chat and target more often, substituting it for squad chat...

 

that 5% is surprising. forgot just how prevalent side bias is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karellean
On 14/03/2019 at 2:58 PM, Kilemall said:

K, Rats 2.0 have actually instituted pop neutrality of a sort, cap timers driven by population mostly.  They monkey with it because as you might imagine, crutching on one primary timer tool creates too much frustration for the overpopped.  Please look into that and we can take it up in a separate thread, I don't want to taint Potthead's excellent thread with the likely poisonous posts that would follow doing it here.

S! Kile,

Yeah I am aware  of the mechanics change. Not that I have played with it much...  And yep... Potthead's population thread deserves better then having a mechanics discussion in it...
If I get a chance Ill do a couple of days research...

Kare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knucks

I just want to say I was really disappointed in the sunday event, I hopped on around 9am to play some and see how many people were in game for the event, I was dismayed to find out that the event hadn't even started, and wouldn't start for another 5 hours. I didn't check how long it was going to last but I came home around 10pm and logged in again only to discover no new units were unlocked for me, and that the event must've ended some time inbetween. As much as I wanted to join the party and play with everyone who showed up, I was unable to due to the time window. I hope for future events this lasts for at the very least the full day, as not every one of your players will be able to fit such a time into their already busy day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
riprend

30 to a side on TZ3?

What a luxury...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorella
3 hours ago, karellean said:

S! Kile,

Yeah I am aware  of the mechanics change. Not that I have played with it much...  And yep... Potthead's population thread deserves better then having a mechanics discussion in it...
 

Since the breakup of Antwerp and Brussels into sectors there have been multi-day ongoing battles back and forth, this recent campaign. All that was really required was for either - or in a few cases BOTH - HCs to drop the AOs.  At one point there were 2 Axis and 1 Allied AOs up on 3 of the 4 sectors in Brux at the same time. 

No set up, no fbs required, no fms really needed (though helpful). Just a simple big city mostly inf and light tank battle lasting for hours and eventually 2-3 days overall in Brux. 

Understand that some people dislike the sectors, other people dislike fighting in big cities - but for some of the newer players I spoke with, they liked it. Just pick a cp/mission, spawn in and there was the fight. Some of them just liked wandering around the city and finding weird places to hide/snipe from. Whatever, there was continuous action. 

I'm not sure if its good or bad or if anything can be learned from this quite different 'spawn in and fight' example of these two cities, compared with the somewhat more lugubrious current requirements for a 'normal' AO: discussion of AO, driving of trucks, setting of FMS, staking out a ZOC, grouping up to cap, calling for armour, etc.  (or in lowpop, driving a truck and dying before setting fms, or setting fms and its camped in 30secs). 

But these recent big city sector fights felt different to me than the last 15 years and were somewhat reminiscent of the old highpop squad-controlled map sector days, even without big numbers. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karellean

Just Checked in... and Out -- Details will be in PM for you Kile (if that still works)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
catfive

Nailed it potthead but I'd expect nothing less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rebel357

TZ3 has caused disdain for many allies over the course of the past few years. with them able too take lots of key towns during their Time zone, towns like Antwerp and Brussles.  These towns were probably fought over during the other TZs and battles lasted i remember one was 12 hours. Log in the next day and find out it fell in 30 minutes. It is that disparity in ability too dictate the map wins really as that what these captures do.. they end up creating shortage of #s for allies and the map rolls swiftly west.  I almost quit the game a year ago over this very thing. I saw no hope of allies ever winning another campaign without serious help from the axis side. (Whips has been key parts of  any allied wins over the past 2 years)  This fear has born out in reality as nothing has really changed with capture timers being tied too population. What is still the same is the ability of the OP Side during One TZ Too control the map. It is still happening too this very day.  Correct me if i am wrong.    anyone!

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
2 hours ago, rebel357 said:

TZ3 has caused disdain for many allies over the course of the past few years. with them able too take lots of key towns during their Time zone, towns like Antwerp and Brussles.  These towns were probably fought over during the other TZs and battles lasted i remember one was 12 hours. Log in the next day and find out it fell in 30 minutes. It is that disparity in ability too dictate the map wins really as that what these captures do.. they end up creating shortage of #s for allies and the map rolls swiftly west.  I almost quit the game a year ago over this very thing. I saw no hope of allies ever winning another campaign without serious help from the axis side. (Whips has been key parts of  any allied wins over the past 2 years)  This fear has born out in reality as nothing has really changed with capture timers being tied too population. What is still the same is the ability of the OP Side during One TZ Too control the map. It is still happening too this very day.  Correct me if i am wrong.    anyone!

CRS keeps backing off the cap timers and not fixing the SD bugs and not spreading the PN pain so no one thing is Too Much.  The FMS move up close is going to be another overpop godsend, already saw that in play. 

And cap timers were NEVER supposed to hand underpopped sides victory to balance campaign outcomes, only to provide an opportunity to attack equally even if underpop.  Smart play wins.

Now if all the vets are driven off, then smart play is not likely to happen, it starts with the sort of thing Potthead is talking about.  But if there is no PN, there is no chance for that to occur with any regularity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jsilec
On 3/18/2019 at 7:59 AM, karellean said:

Just Checked in... and Out -- Details will be in PM for you Kile (if that still works)

 

Wassup yo been long time man 

Edited by Jsilec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob
5 hours ago, rebel357 said:

TZ3 has caused disdain for many allies over the course of the past few years.

yeah, loosing 10+ towns and 3 divs was BS

i'm not as invested in campaigns anymore, but when i was it was like all our gameplay in tz1&2 didn't have any value

 

also, the guys from tz1 get too much flakk for their map moving (in either direction). they were simply better players than the rest of the time zones. they got caught in the tz3 cull hard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karellean
On 23/03/2019 at 6:04 AM, Jsilec said:

Wassup yo been long time man 

Busy building a career n stuff Jsil...

Had an interest.. so looked in...

Observational Notes (Factors in TZ3 pop levels, there was some other stuff not pop related Ill leave out):

1. Spawn Delay Bug
Underpop getting SD, sighted again inside 30 mins of logging in...  Same old problem I flagged maybe 4 years back... That was the last straw for many TZ3 players...  Occurs when Pop level reaches around 15-20...  SD Algorithm doesn't handle sharp swings in numbers that can occur that time of night...  

2. Netcode 3 and TZ3
Also first time Ive  had to use Netcode 3, and found for my ~240-260ms latency (West Coast Australia)
I could not even get cleanly out of the CP without constantly clipping into things, was a struggle to walk out in itself... let alone shoot anything...
I am sure NC3 fixes the laggy warping inf for those on low ping, so understand why it is in there... So to be clear, I understand fully, that  I am a victim of circumstances with that, not any Devs fault...

NC3 likely has less of an impact on TZ3 East Coast Australian who can get 190-220ms  and probably fall under the threshold for a number of lag protection mechanisms Netcode applies, so they don't feel it as much...
Backing this statement:  I game for about 2 weeks of the year on connections over there, and don't feel as much pain... Haven't tried WWIIOL under NC3 there yet though, it probably ok in the cities, but anyone regionally will be as bad off as I am...


My NC3/ Geographic Context:
I am probably the only WWIIOL player in West Australia, and arguably the furthermost from anyone to the server...
I have a similar experience in almost every other game in recent times though... Network coding everywhere has changed, expecting people to have better connections and punishing those with bad ping...
Netcode cant fix the  Laws of physics (distance/speed of light) which dictate I wont get much better than 230ms even with a ping optimizer... Older versions of Networking Code often used to be more tolerant then what they are today of higher pings, So I could get by...   Some games/servers even refuse me access straight up these days, as I can't get under 200ms... 

 

Regardless of the above not being anyone's fault., and most won't have an experience as bad as mine, Netcode 3  probably hasn't helped any TZ3 players either, and therefore should be considered as a factor affecting TZ3 population.


 Stay South of Antwerp and Have Fun...

S!

Kare

Edited by karellean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
david06

due to a variety of factors the TZ3 rolls have been magnified

I don't want to rustle too many jimmies here, but there is the way people in the forums and CRS think that the game should be played, then there is the real way to play the game, and this disconnect has resulted in almost the direct opposite effect of what the people have intended with their game changes:

  • the population penalties buff the side with more experienced players, more organized players, and better supplied players...so a struggling team with no vets, no squads and a bad flag movement or two will find itself penalized, hence the "underpop" side getting slammed and alleging that something has been miscalculated when it's really not
  • the penalty is determined by players spawned in to the game world, so the goal is to stay spawned in as little as possible
  • the cap timer penalty/buff cannot help the underpop side if they can't get inside the depots
  • teaming up and capturing a depot is the most retarded way to capture and is at low pop is actually penalized, don't ever team up if you do it had better be 2-3 cutters and one capper
  • the best way to capture is to put one person in each depot and just go AFK
  • frequently the number of depots that have to be defended exceeds the number of available defenders, so unless 80% of the TZ3 allied team is sitting inside literally staring at gray walls (and contributing to population count) then there will be open depots
  • with the new armybase bunker one SMG can easily hold against several people trying to cap (or recap), this means that if the underpop side during TZ3 leaves a bunker open or the one HC guarding is looking at map then they are not retaking that bunker
  • defense has been made easier, so fewer towns are captured during US prime
  • setting a FMS is so hard that the underpop team cannot get off its back and change momentum
  • FBs now have a massive amount of health, so the underpop team cannot even get to the point where they have attack options
  • defense has been made easier, cutoff towns surrender automatically, AO limits are lower, and there are special AO prohibitions on soft captures, so there is an extreme payoff now for cutting off towns, I mean prime time is 2 AOs but with a cutoff you can capture 15+ towns at once
  • cutoff mechanics don't care about population, so you can burst population and make a move, then turtle for eight hours while the other team is technically overpop, can't attack and just watches their towns surrender

so yeah just about everything made to address the TZ3 problem has made it worse

not that it matters too much though, because the same people complaining about lowpop rolls during TZ3 were complaining about the huge combined-arms attacks that euro prime axis players would put on, it was never about balance or quality of gameplay it was about losing and the complaints should have been held in that context rather than elevated to some pedestal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jet2019

The simple fact that the overpop side can simply bypass the spawn delay by "STAYING IN MISSION WAITING TO SPAWN IN" is telling in itself.

Of course, now that spawn delay is set at a max of 10 seconds, the need to do this is nullified.

Appears to be no easy answers to the perennial  tz3 issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
potthead
On 2/6/2019 at 2:54 PM, potthead said:

Salute All.

WARNING ::::: Just some random thoughts of a stoner.. definitely TLDR for many :) Grab a joint if u have one ! leave me with your thoughts as I will come back to read when I am stoned again! .. with Love.. Potthead.

----------------

 

I have a theory I like to get some thoughts / possible Data mining on. 

------------------------

Theory:   (it maybe VERY FALSE PERCEPTION, JUST a Hypothesis that I am trying to prove wrong or validate with data / other players perception/ input) :

I am going to make a suggestion :

Absolute Numbers Available to a side are about the same almost every map, it is the amount of TIME each of the player puts into the game (TOM) that is different and causes overpop/underpop over the course of the map based on a few factors ultimately boiling to engagement in the campaign

------------------------

FACT: Most maps will show the winning side having higher Time On Mission. 

I don't believe this equals to "the side with more players (numbers) have won." 

I believe this is a product of the momentum that leads to win itself, not a predecessor to it. 

As a side starts losing momentum (for whatever reason), the players will either log in shorter periods of time, or less frequently. This is VERY evident in HC numbers (when winning on either side, there is MORE HC). I believe (have no data to prove) that this is case for player-base.

On the other hand, when a side is winning (for whatever reason), the players stay longer hours and log in more frequently and stay to help after the log in.

I observe this also in the Discord by noticing what other games players of the losing side. I saw this end of 2 maps ago on Axis side..  (the regulars of our side were playing other games instead of wwiionline... heroes and generals, overwatch, red dead redemption, battlefield, world of tanks etc). . The discord on the winning side on other hand has more players logged in and on wwiionline than other games.

------------------------

Data needed: (wire tap gurus...?)

I wonder if there is a possibility to get data on how many unique players actually log in to a side during a campaign.

And then calculate  

(To understand whether numbers create win/momentum or win create numbers/momentum and snowballs to more.)

---------------------------

What makes me think of this theory:

I have always thought this way .... underpop, I defend as much as possible with TEASE mole AOs to draw some enemy away from their AO.

If I can manage to with whatever way possible, get 3-5 on discord with me, really increases my odds of holding the DO and then after DO saved (a desperate situation turned around), I notice a surge in moral, energy and momentum and a SMALL window of Overpop usually follows.

It is in that window of Small overpop that counts and if leadership helps to get them onto offense and keep them entertained and logged on.

Somehow no matter how underpop, majority of times after 2-3 hours of perseverance, a short window of overpop can be created by [censored]-blocking the enemy, taking their FB to their P1 or ninja capping a AB while they are all focused on main prize.

Usually the MISTAKES from overpop side (not guarding the spawnble they capped, not guarding FB.. not covering spawn or AB in DO while overpop) .. the task for underpop is 2 things :

A. Force the enemy to make mistake... make them fight each-other and blame each-other for the mistake and demoralize them...  (sounds ugly right? but i think this is why some of us love the game.. the BRUTALITY of it.. makes victory so sweet and defeat SO Bitter) 

B. Exploit the small window of disarray that follows to create own pop advantage .. first by making enemy log off some numbers (feeling victory so close and lost it) ... second build small momentum with a fun as little possible  attack as one can muster. Celebrate the defensive success.  

----------------------------------

Time Zone 3: Who are the players?

I am one of the VERY few players left actually based in TZ3. I play both sides (more Axis.. about 2 years each time, and then 6-8 months Allied) have played Allied overall about 3 years or so over 4 tenures and Axis about 9 years.  What i am describing below is my experience on BOTH sides (especially in the last 2 years ).

Time Zone 3 Population DOES NOT Exist (i.e players from Australia, NZ, parts of Asia) there maybe less than 10 regulars -

Since this game is 24 hours/ 7 days a week however, I think it makes players who desire to win momentum to generally play longer hours, miss work and impact their RL at times even but that is the cost the pay to win.

It is the TZ1 players who log in a bit earlier than their USUAL hour and stay logged in if they see FUN on their side.......... OR ..... TZ2 Players who will stay LONGER as they are having  FUN with things to do and desire to win.... they will have coffee ... have another beer... and do all nighters even sometimes when operations are still going ... or they have gained so much during their afternoon/evening... they dont want to see it lost before they wake up that they sacrifice their sleep to stay and play more...

----------------------------

24 Hour Game / Less Sleep / personal sacrifices WINS THE WAR

With above said... I think this phenomenon of the 24 hour game that causes imbalanced in TZ3 to show more... it is the TIME when the HARD CORE WAR players who REALLY want to WIN come and play.... to the frustration of the casual players.... I saw this when I was on Allied side as well as Axis side. When guys like Goreblimey, Sw1 keep momentum going or when Martigan comes a bit earlier than his usual time, guys like mobius, rebel and so on will be on longer hours than their usual... On Axis side.. when I am online and do best to keep momentum going... or when players like Majes99 , some 250H folks (tz1) log in earlier and there is action going they stay longer or when HC like shagher log in a bit earlier than usual ... or guys like Kacman/Hondo who are Tz2 and wake up early and check map and if there is fun they stay a bit longer... 

 

What do you think? 

Do numbers come first.. then momentum follows? ... or does momentum begin with a few and then turns into numbers?

if you think the numbers come first... what leads to maps turning sometimes?

Thanks for reading!!! [censored] that was a book!

S! . Potthead /Bongohed

 

We now have over 1 year of Data.. 

I wonder if above can be validated by DATA now?

Do numbers come first.. then momentum follows? ... or does momentum begin with a few and then turns into numbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakeh

Does anyone have data?

My theory...

Map wise,  numbers drive momentum.  But individual initiative plays a big role along with HC leadership.

Per AO -- a few can drive momentum but that momentum can only be sustained by numbers.    But the truth is, in regards to spawns, "If you cap it they just don't spawn!"

Players, who mostly have a similar background, randomly assign themselves to a side, so you can expect similar skill levels, TOM and effort.  These traits will cancel each other out.  What is left is numbers.

 

Another factor to consider:   The impact of the negative player.

We all know the type- always gripping about everything.  Always calling someone out for what they consider to be unacceptable acts.   My theory is such players have a negative impact on other players initiative and effort.    Does the side with the most negative players win or lose more often?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
potthead
42 minutes ago, blakeh said:

Does anyone have data?

My theory...

Map wise,  numbers drive momentum.  But individual initiative plays a big role along with HC leadership.

Per AO -- a few can drive momentum but that momentum can only be sustained by numbers.    But the truth is, in regards to spawns, "If you cap it they just don't spawn!"

Players, who mostly have a similar background, randomly assign themselves to a side, so you can expect similar skill levels, TOM and effort.  These traits will cancel each other out.  What is left is numbers.

 

Another factor to consider:   The impact of the negative player.

We all know the type- always gripping about everything.  Always calling someone out for what they consider to be unacceptable acts.   My theory is such players have a negative impact on other players initiative and effort.    Does the side with the most negative players win or lose more often?

 

Data available for over 10 maps now over 1 year... http://www.campaigncharts.com/

you can check population balance by campaign 

or check how much time on mission there has been 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakeh

tx

Good info.

Just going by "Population balance by tine of day"  it is very obvious that numbers are what determines who wins.   

You can tell who won just by looking at the graph, except for camp 169.  Camp 169  graph does not match any of the others.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jsilec
3 hours ago, blakeh said:

tx

Good info.

Just going by "Population balance by tine of day"  it is very obvious that numbers are what determines who wins.   

You can tell who won just by looking at the graph, except for camp 169.  Camp 169  graph does not match any of the others.  

I believe 169 allies came back from losing twep bruss and maubege....lowpop turned the tide in that map if I remember correctly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
On 5/24/2020 at 2:56 AM, potthead said:

We now have over 1 year of Data.. 

I wonder if above can be validated by DATA now?

Do numbers come first.. then momentum follows? ... or does momentum begin with a few and then turns into numbers?

Both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
Posted (edited)

Brain fart.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...