View Single Post
Unread 31 Mar 2009, 10:07   #16
Tietäjä
Good Son
 
Tietäjä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
Tietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: eXilition vs Ascendancy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
This is an extremely shit statement. It was better in my day arguments are best left to old men dude.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hude View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achi
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.
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".
Tietäjä is offline   Reply With Quote