eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

Who would win a round? I would say Ascendancy. This round Omen had the "dreaded" Kaifux in their ranks, and still did not manage to win.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

eXilition probably wasn't full of spies, and Kaifux came in after the round had started.

Then you have to take into account how many of Ascendancy were in eXi.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

It should would be a fight worth watching though!

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

Impossible to compare until eXi plays a more recent round. Its no coincidence that Ascendancys recent success has coincided with allies like eXilition not playing.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

The last time eXilition played, a load of current Asc players were there, so you can't really compare them.
And you can't compare the current Asc to R13/15 eXi either as quite a few players were in both

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

Round 13 eXilition is the best alliance I remember fighting against.

eX/LCH/ToT gave ND 660 incomings over ~48 hours.

I missed lots of rounds though.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

you cant even begin to compare omen to exilition, they are on 2 completely different levels.

exi had fighting spirit omen didnt, and omen were full of crashers.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

Depends which side I play for, I = TEH WIN.

On a more serious note I`d have to agree some of the previous posters in that this would be very hard to predict seeing as alot of the old exi players are now in Ascendancy and when exi last returned it was basically JBG(now in ascendancy) running the alliance singlehandidly.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

Would Ascendancy even have a tag?

Last time a load of members went and joined eXi without even bothering to tell JBG/jester, thinking they could stay in both alliances.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

Eh that was a huge mixup afaik, i would rather question if exi would have a tag if asc play.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

I'd make a tag obviously.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

We'd win.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

The whole idea of someone branding Kaifux as "dreaded" really beats me. To be honest, the guy's not all that impressive. I can't really argue that I'd found Sid impressive the time I had dealings with him either, though, so I guess it's just lacklustre drivel.

But seriously, there's people I'd consider far more instrumental to eXilition's military success than Kaifux. The problem is, Kaifux may have been a great motivator in eXilition, this obviously wasn't the case in Omen. It's really typical for Omen to fall short on the long run, I should know, having been there quite a bit. I personally may have been overly optimistic on Omen's chances after it seemed that there'd be a strong eXilition'ish influence there, but hey.

Back on the ball, I'd put my money on eXilition. The days are just different. The comparison's inexistant. You can hardly say Ascendancy's ever been matched up as tough as eXilition used to be. The game today is just scrubs.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

I think eX was at its best in round 15. Winning against all the odds.

I think Kaifux always was more like a supervisor keeping everything running and a great motivotional speaker. He didn't try to do everything but delegated things to a bunch of capable and motivated people. eXilition always was extremely organized and I haven't seen any member saying such an organization existed anywhere else.

It's also impossible to reform eX to the form of its early rounds. I also think that the hierarchical leadership wouldn't work anymore like it did in r13/15. There were signs of it falling apart already in r18/19 and it was a catastrophe in r23. Experienced players don't like to be told what they can and cannot do.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

This is an extremely shit statement. It was better in my day arguments are best left to old men dude.

On the thread topic I think Ascendancy is by far the better alliance overall as it's model is both more successful and far more sustainable. As for head-to-head it's really impossible to say who would win given the crossover of players and passage of time.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

I could go on forever how the general downwards cycle in activity could or would influence things, and what the effect of such is on the hierarchical models and more lose models, but that's probably an essay on a different subject.

Yeah. Hierarchical models as such for groups have of lately been rather unsuccessfull (if you'd read the bible that is known as the alliance rules of VGN and then follow up on the IRC drama on it you'd probably giggle too). I guess this has to do with the generic atmosphere of the game at large, people aren't "motivated" enough nowadays to push it. I guess this could be viewed as sorts of a corrosion of the community at large - finally.

The crossover argument inevitably comes with the counter-argument that when the alliances both have played (I'm fairly convinced this has happened, correct me if I'm wrong though, I have a memory round 19 was one of these), eXilition was the one winding up on top of things on the alliance perspective - this can probably be a part of a construction which implies that a good chunk of what you consider "Ascendancy" players are in fact eXilition players playing in Ascendancy since the latter isn't around. This particular round does speak for eXilition on this argument as a whole. I'm sure someone will argue that "the Ascendancy of that day was a different group alltogether".

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

indeed, but then again all methods of controlling groups of people and running organisations ultimately comes down to the context of who is in that group etc....personality plays a huge part.

this bible of rules that allies like vgn/denial have/had may be complicated and get mocked by people who play in a different system (asc members generally) but ultimately in a lot of alliances rules ARE essential. an example of this from personal experience is audentes.

last round we had audentes members defending ingal against audentes attackers which created an internal shitstorm which ultimately was the first step of audentes failing horribly. BC's threatened to quit, an HC stepped down, at least 2 members who were defended against quit the ally that day, and over the next week or 2 many quit over the backlash (tobbe and posi - 2 of our main DC's as an example).

ascendancy will have policies in place also, but generally you see them as COMMON SENSE :P the handbook that asc members play by seems quite simple: dont be shit, dont crash, use common sense - this works due to the high quality of the memberbase, vast experience and leadership from these skilled and experienced players to the new blood. it also seems to me that the spirit of teamplay and general asc psyche spreads exceptionally well (though not perfectly)....people that are idiots and dont tick these boxes or have a poor attitude dont seem to last long

regarding the hierarchical structure and those who use it: how do you (and others) feel alliances like New Dawn, Conspiracy Theory and Omen would have performed this round without hierarchy and instead using a more open setup? personally i dont think this would have had a positive effect, at least not in omen. i think asc are certainly a special alliance in recent history however....not for how it is ran but the strength in morale, teamspirit and leadership it brings round after round

sorry for the essay again and semi-tangent from the original post. as everyone says its impossible to compare asc and exi due to the crossover in times etc: the only way we'll ever know is if kenny makes us a youtube video using a scientific simulation like this one

youtube.com/watch?v=o22mGCSfUQY

(spanish commentary optional)

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

Decent post if you ask me.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

Yeah, that's very true. Unarguably, both alliances had their peak times in different contexts too. This all should probably be defined before you'd even consider asking the question (this, in round 19 Ascendancy probably being a really different a place in many ways in compared to round 30 Ascendancy, the same being true for round 19 eXilition and round 13 eXilition). Such a cheap bait!


post scriptum. I'm a Vengeance member as of this round. What comes to Omen hierarchy, it's always been, and probably was this round too, very feeble. I should know. I'm part responsible.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

Neither would. Nobody would break and some shitty alliance would end up #1.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

i thought the best alliance always ends at #1 jonny? :P

(not saying youve ever expressed this opinion...but it is one ive seen many times, and not one i particularly agree with, but again....thats another topic 'innit')

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

I seem to recall that a lot of people expressed the opinion over the years that the best single PA alliance they ever saw was fury in round six. That alliance didn't win. I wouldn't say the best alliance will always win. If there's an alliance playing that's significantly better than its competition it'll almost always win in my opinion but that's about it.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

The alliance that wins is best because it has won, and there is no other objective determinant that doesn't get bogged down by shitty semantics (we had the most incoming! we launched the best attacks! etc etc). But that's the analysis from ranking, and in my opinion is best used to point out that there's no such thing as an undeserving victory.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

This is goinging to go off on a bit of a tangent, but let's accept for a moment that rules and the strong enforcement of them is necessary. If this is the case, then there are still some things other alliances can learn from Ascendancy.

When we set up Ascendancy, one of the (many) things it was borne of was the frustration with how regular members and even officers are treated in alliances we'd been in. The HC are always privvy to a bunch of information and power that would be very useful for others to have. And this, as much as all the idealistic babble about open structure and less hierarchy, is something other alliances can learn from.

Why shouldn't members be able to look at hostile planet intel? If they use it to avoid hitting hostile planets, you already have rules in place to deal with that. If they instead use it to solo target hostile planets, your alliance has benefited. DCs are in a similar situation, they need to prioritize (not to the point of exclusion, but you know what I mean) hostile cover in a war. But if they can't see who's attacking, they can't do that efficiently.

I also think other alliances can benefit from lowering recruitment standards if they could increase the accountability of the person recruiting the new player. Without the accountability, the alliance has no quality control. In Ascendancy this isn't formalized beyond a nick in a command output, but since everyone can see who sponsored a person to join, they have someone they can talk to that should be able to communicate to the new recruit.

I realize that the Ascendancy structure isn't for everyone, but some things have gotten lost in the midst of ideological arguments about anarchy and fascism.

My argument for the general flat structure is that people are terrible predictors of who will do well in a leadership role, so it's better to let these people make their own mark. A lot of people disagree with this for different reasons. Some people simply want to be the one in charge, that's why they created the alliance. Other people want to work together with certain command teams. Other people believe that I'm wrong when I say that they're terrible predictors, and try to predict who will do well as HC/BC/DC.

You don't have to adopt this, or even agree with me on this. EXilition definitely didn't play this way, and they were very successful. But surely alliances that claim to be playing for fun can stop treating their members like children?

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

If your playing cricket, the batsmen has an epileptic fit and knocks his wicket over, it doesnt make you an awesome bowler, it just makes him f*cking retarded.

As for who would win if they where to play next round: Exi would win, purely because of the anti Asc sentiment, while i do think Asc would be a better team.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

For once I find myself completly agreeing with what banned says...
Didn't see that one coming tbh!

He makes a valid point about all the secrecy going on and most members being threated as children in alot of alliances.
I've been a member in certain allies where I couldn't check the intel on planets and it pissed me off, but what's even worse than that is when you're in an alliance that is p-targetting another alliance but doesn't want to tell it's members what ally they're hitting...

If you don't trust your members with information like that, why let them in your alliance in the first place?
That may have worked in the past but with the small community we have left now it simply doesn't work that easy anymore.

I look forward to next round where there'll be alot of new allies / bg's with most likely a more open system to their members.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

This is a fairly interesting question I presented on the other medium during a flush of drama. If the alliance's purpose, function, is to provide a cozy community for friends and players to play in, with no particular goal to climb the charts, where does the need to write down ad infinitum rules and regulations arise from.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

Because a common HC-mentality is to retain others from power while to obtain as much power possible for themself... Some people still thinks it's cool in some way to boss people around the intrawebbb, regardless of cozyness.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

you'd need to ask that to the multiple people who have founded alliances in the past 10 rounds that question ;)

i dont really see many problems with open intel access, it was something i wanted in audentes had we played this round again. i guess it comes down to the intense paranoia thats prominent in alliances...especially regarding intel and member co-ords

indeed, this was another problem that i heard of in audentes. maybe the HC's there had their reasons for that, im assuming the HC's of current allies have their reasons for policies they implement

if theres a good reason for NOT giving intel or whatever i guess thats fair enough...i just hope allies KNOW why they do things rather than just 'thats the way ive seen it done before' (which wouldnt surprise me /o\)


this is quite a good point, however it shows a collective responsibility that wouldnt really work in other alliances imo. if anything it sort of highlights my point about the overall quality and leadership across ascendancy which allows it to function in the way it does with such great success.

id hope that all competitive alliances have a record of who is recruited, who has vouched etc and with the right characters in that alliance they could communicate effectively to new recruits.

i like both systems tbh. in theory both should work only in 2 different ways.

with the vouch system with a good internal affairs team and record of who has vouched there is some element of accountability within the playerbase but a large amount of responsibility falls upon particular players (those who volunteer to be officers) which should ensure quality as they can motivate and help those who are of 'lower quality'

with the asc system (fruity or however you call it now :P) its good as it spreads the responsibility which obviously is better as generally most people will perform better when not overworked or worrying about other people. im ashamed to admit there have been times ive been doing BC'ing and TA'ing in games and worrying so much about other people not launching ive forgotten to launch myself /o\

the asc system clearly works for you guys but its aided immensely by your current memberbase along with your appeal for potential joinees. i dont really expect others to replicate this recruitment model anytime soon. who knows...

dont the majority of alliances with strict rules and who treat their members like children play for 'the win'?

and you have to admit Banned, there are quite a lot of players in this game who ACT like children ;)

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

The problem with traditional vouch systems is how they accountability is handled. Like I said, in Ascendancy the accountability is there because members hassle eachother about the people they've sponsored. This drives people to take (some) responsibility for their recruits.

In the last regular alliance I was in, vouching didn't really have any possibly negative consequences and as far as I know, the only time it was really checked up on was if a spy was discovered. And even then it didn't really lead to anything, just lowered the trustworthiness of all that person's other recruits.

Maybe, but winning is pretty fun. Maybe if they reversed their priorities they'd get further.

Yup. And quite a few of them have been or are in Ascendancy.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

Ascendancy - 3 wins in a row
Exilition - Who?

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

eXilition wins because they had a strong bound with their members when they showed up - Ascendancy would probably loose a bunch of their people. also exi did cover every single aspect of a modern and organized alliance. in terms of activity I'm sure they'd be on the same level with Asc but I'd foresee exi putting some extra effort in it which would make the difference. the challenge of exi vs. asc would be great tho because their internal structure is totally different:)

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

Kaifux is really an awesome organizer and motivator.
Hes unlike anyone I ve ever worked with in PA.

He would never spend too much time sorting things himself, because he would first have made a perfect model where he had people who knew their jobs, and did them. He will just motivate the person to keep doing it :p
I have no doubt that eXi would not only beat asc, but I also think they would totally crush them. I m uncertain if asc would even bother playing in a normal fashion, so the scenario would never happen.

People have their ties, most dont have their real ties to Asc.

Like in Omen this round, I got like 8-10 old Omens who had played with omen inthe past, to leave asc and join omen.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

And then half of them left Omen for Ascendancy.

[edit]10 total!

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

none of the old omeners left omen to rejoin asc.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

And none of the old Ascendancy guys left to join Omen.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

I'll be the first to admit that I am just a peon, and I may see things differently then others, but I disagree. In my opinion many have real ties to Asc. Unfortunately I have not played when exi did, so I don't know how many people in Asc feel some sort of loyalty to them. Hopefully spending time in an alliance will give you some sort of bond that keeps you loyal not only to the alliance itself but to the individual players you have spent time with, defended, attacked with and received def from.

All I can say is that the way I see it, of all the alliances I have been in, I have never been in one where people work so much for the ally and so little for their own personal gain. (Always exceptions) That must count for something?

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

asc is based around quite a few diff. groups of peoples.

All of which originate from another alliance. If said alliance will play again now, most would leave asc to play with their old alliance.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

I have a poll up on asc.tv and will get back to you with the results next week! (If I remember.)

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

thanks, I ll be interested to see the result.
what I posted is the feeling I got after spending 3 rounds in ascendancy though.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

That's an interesting point. Personally I think, especially after last round where we really had to work together, that the vast majority (say 80-90) of the current group we have would play for ascendancy above any other alliance if that's what it came down to. Some of them would be fairly weird though. I mean, would ministry play again? We seem to have somehow absord the entire of ministry into ascendancy these days so **** knows.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

Last round I was really impressed, and somewhat amazed. You all played like a very strong team.

Its all only speculations ofc, and I really hope that Asc stays strong if / when a new nice contenter again plays to beat asc. I might even be asc myself then! aslong as it isnt eXi returning :p

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

I'd never leave asc for another alliance.
I was lch then exi in r19, because we based our initial strategy upon that, but if Exi had forced me to choose, I would have left exilition and gone with Asc.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

Ascendancy has, in my opinion, only ever performed well under pressure. Under no pressure people end up fighting over planet and gal ranks and daft things like that. In terms of playing full force if another contender came back it'd be debatable. It takes a lot of effort and as seen by the fact exi hasn't been back in what, seven rounds now, it's a huge investment to make timewise. We just play below our "potential" sometimes because, well, we always play.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

The fact that you always play is impressive.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

Throw 1up in the ring as well and we'd have one good round ;)

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

The only ties I have left are in ascendancy :(

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

Lets face it you'ld look terrible in a tie.

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

Ministries official stance on this is:

We do not wish to play or organize things when we have people to do it for us! :ascendancy:

Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy
 

Ministry have no good players, and would never have a chance to do anything on their own ever ever again in planetarion!

hah :(