Correct me if I am wrong.
 

As I was doing my weekly glance at the top planets and gals, I noticed a funny thing. I saw each top gals soaked with planets with little green "A's" next to their name. I was like "woah, am I missing something?" I looked at the top alliances and saw ascendancy was #5. I scratched my head in confusion because they "are" the top 4 gals. Hands down, no maybes, no ifs. They are the top 4 gals. Period. Please fill me in on exactly which alliance is winning.

I am confused because back in the day IPC always had the biggest tag, but they were never the winners. I was wondering if we were going back to that, as clearly Ascendancy played a better round than any other alliance.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

I cant see any green "a"s anywhere :|

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

The force is not with you my son.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Actually I have a legit point. If you really think about it.

I will have to admit though, the discussion delivery is a little bit, lets say, asshole-ish, but still, I have a point.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

You sound like you're trying to convince yourself, not me.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Where are the poor helpless victims?

WHERE ARE THEY.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

I think it goes some thing like :

" While you were warring, we were stockpiling"

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

What happened to this chap?

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Never mind. I was misinformed. Request for Speedy Deletion.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Yeah, Asc are doing well this round. It's also apprioiate to note Ascendency as an alliance are in a very unique position compared to other alliances.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

How do you mean NitinA?

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

-------------
-------------
Read
-------------
-------------

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

That's actually a cute little 'graphic' Rinoa, I smiled briefly. The fact is NitinA's post could mean a lot of things and his is an opinion I'm actually interested in. So I'd rather ask him to clarify than make up the meaning which suits me best.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

We need more than thirty active members :(

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Hmm, I thought I had given you access to the bot army? :(

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

JBG doesnt need bots, he gets free shippies from the people running pa! :(

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Ive been surprised by ascendancy this round tbh. You lot have 61 tagged members, and Im wondering what recruitment policies you guys have adopted. I think there is some misconception that ascendancy is an alliance of good players who cut the crap and do what they like, but despite this being true, the only recruitment rule you seem to have, is that you dont play shit.

I'd be interested to know when you guys decided to defend each other and what tactics you used this round.

I don't know chika, its really hard for me to agree with you on anything, but WP havent been tested, god knows what angels have been doing, and CT havent been active enough to launch a proper title challenge.

Ascendancy seems to suit its members. Its members (the ones I know are of a certain type; the type that really dont like being told what to do, but they actually do well for themselves playing as THEY want to play. Which, no matter which way you look at it, is fair play. Its an alliance full of intelligent roid whores.

But every round every alliance plays in exactly the same way- they attack together (at roughly the same time bar mid-morning retals) they TRY and defend each other and get into a routine. This round has been pretty poor for that, to me, ascendancy have actually played the most intelligent game. But then, ascendancy won a round a few rounds back, in the most intelligent win (for me) in pa, when they raped xp after looking at the stats and left everyone for dead.

I wouldn't say that the top 4 gals equate to ascendancy being the best alliance this round, because the top10 gals have fluctuated vigorously until about a week ago, when gaps between galaxies seemed to go crazy almost overnight. But ascendancy's rank, well. The roid count, the member count, the avg score. If you aren't in ascendancy, it looks ugly.

It just seems that there are good elements to the way they play, minus all the bullshit that the other alliances have. And the fact that you probably (and this is my most contraversial point) could win rounds like this if you wanted to, leaves you looking bizarre. As long as individuals are performing, the ascendancy tag seems to be a bonus.

Fair play.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Oh and Benneh is a whore. :(

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

The idea is to decimate half the tag, and merge to the highest scoring planets of Angels for a surprise win. Doesn't mean you'd have to recruit the people to form a tag off them, and with Angels we could definately say "nobody saw that coming".

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Defence was acknowledged to be of far greater utility this round than last. As such, because we don't like getting out of bed at 3am that much the idea of ascendancy-heavy galaxies was reused. We considered the possibility of attempting to win but we lacked the number of members to do so. Incidentally I found that horrifyingly gay about this round, due to the round length it was virtually impossible for us to gain enough score back on the 70 member alliances (we've actually been gaining the most score of any alliance in the game for the last while). The initial point of PA where everyone's fleets are roughly similar and tactically nothing has started to pay off yet is just shit for us because regardless of the fact if you put the 30 best players ever into a tag they're just not going to outgrow a 70 member alliance for the first bit.

We also focused on value as opposed to xp. I think we only have one player who's primarily xp based and he joined mid-round. Focusing on value meant constructions +++. The vast majority of our "serious" players have 60 fcs and have had them for a while, coupled with feudalism we worked out pre-round that you can effectively double the value you get from your planet, 55% mining bonus with the stacked feud bonus is about 206%. We also prioritise intelligent fleet slot usage, using ingal def fleets means while other alliances waste 19 ticks on a fleet slot we spend 9. We're also willing to 3 fleet def when it makes more sense, something you're not going to see in many other alliances.

Next round maybe other people will join us in being ridiculously cool :(

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

You will never be as cool as me, but thanks for trying though.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

TGV have had a sad overuse of threefleet defence this round. In fact we got so fixated in defending that people pulled from our attackraids and defended instead. With the small amount of xp you get, this isnt really worth it, but I can see why some choose to do it.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Having the top 4 gals constitutes winning. I am sorry, it just does. It makes it an arguable ordeal, and in that sense ascendancy wins. Sure we can speculate that if people in ascendancy play half serious they could have had the top score overall also. Ascendancy doesn't have these superduper smart plans like jbg makes it sound, from the outside looking in, they all agree with one thing (3 or 4 people discuss it and say it in the public channel and everyone follows) and they stick with it collectively. Other alliances do not do this, WP did not do this. In what aspect did they win? They had the most active players? With half the active member base ascendancy virtually controls the universe. I did absolutely nothing this round, I did send defence to these top gals though. I feel better about having 4 of the top 5 gals, than by my alliance collectively having the most score, with only 7 or 8 of our planets in the top 100.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

ascendancy have the most number of planets in the top 100 by the way, and also top 10/20.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

While they're often not that explicit everything I said in my post is pretty much true.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Yeah. Straight up real shit. I am only implying that it isn't rocket science.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Did someone forget to tell me, or were you all to lazy so you got alki to spread the tactics of the round.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Motivation comes from within dear.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

what you mean by having the top 4 gals?

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Exactly what it says, Asc controls the top4 gals.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

You are being a bit to nice there Game.

When you say Ascendancy "control" the top 4 galaxies you imply they may have members who are a "minister" or "GC". I think you should be less gracious and just tell everyone that the galaxies are Ascendancy heavy as far as the planets are concerned.

Oh Apologies I may have just done it for you.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Depending on how you define "control", you just said the exact same thing as Game did.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

I guess, but I slightly gave some substance behind the matter if you know what I mean.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

pig you should have stuck with terran

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

pig was utter shit in my gal aswell :P oh and alki, did you read the stats before telling people to go terran? :P *pets pig*

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

So far Alki is proving everyone wrong with going terran. Then again it might be because I commited myself to defending him all round.
And Game your gal is hardly Ascendancy, it's more like WP/Vision :(

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Mind you, he's been more or less fat all round, and i personally dont think that has something with the race to do, i think it has something with the gal ;)

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

I have been a roaring sucess with Cathaar. My tarantula fleet has allowed me to bum certain planets.

I mean I roided Cronix*, or whatever he is called. I don't think he can end top 1 anymore (if he ever could)




*along with a few others....:(

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Given jer's just said you have the most planets in the top 10/20/100, and as you've said, Ascendancy too focused on value as opposed to XP..

It certainly does appear to me that an alliance in Ascendancy's position could've had much more success in its 'race' against CT/Angels/WP if it had been somewhat more aggressive towards them. The score system certainly did slow you down quite a lot, but if you'd really wanted it I'm sure you could've made up the difference by making life hard for two of those alliances (maybe you are right now with Angels I've no clue).

I find it to be quite silly that what i'd consider to be the most powerful alliance is in fourth place, but it might well be the alliance and not the game at fault. Presumably the alliance could've picked up on this earlier and done a bit more with its power. I guess Asc noticed this at a point where it felt it wasn't going to win regardless and not surprisingly it prioritised other things above 2nd place.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

"Most powerfull" in what regard?
Ego?

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

top10 compability and shawingfoam/razor combo

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

i suppose you are refering to kileman, jbg,jer & benneh?

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Hahaha no :)

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Go fix portal you hobo!

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

As in the alliance that could most effectively beat the crap out of the others if it wanted to.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

And if ldk came back in force the entire playerbase of pa would be gangraped.
There, i wrote some fiction also :)

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

As far as wars are concerned, towards the end of a round players not in the t200 tend to become almost entirely useless. Players in the top 10/20/100 become rather bloody useful. I don't know how close WP are to Asc in any of those ranks, but if there's a decent gap between the two then I'm sure Asc is the more powerful alliance.

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Or they become an disadvantage, depends how you look at it, and how you're opponents look at it ;)

Re: Correct me if I am wrong.
 

The top players become a disadvantage? How is one looking at it to come to that conclusion? NAPs? I don't doubt that Ascendancy could play that game just as hard as WolfPack could.