Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
The only rounds we've had a full tag from pretty much the start of the round were r28 and r31, and even r28 I don't think it was full from the very beginning. Round 30 we only started with like 60 people and then recruited the rest during the round. This round is the first round where we basically can't get a full tag, which is slightly different. Nonetheless we're perfectly capable of winning. I'd be rather surprised if everyone genuinely thought we were the alliance most likely to win the round though. As reese says it's hardly like we've got every good player playing pa this round or something.
To pre-empt the inevitable spasticness "yes, you're right. Your alliance is so bad even with artificial limits on ascendancy and half of us being cov-oppers we'll still win. Why did you even sign up? Better get like every alliance in the game involved to attack us or it'll be over by pt 100!"
|
I didnīt say Ascendancy is going to single-handedly own the round. I donīt think so at all. Iīm merely trying to hammer into peoples heads that Asc wonīt play BG style on purpose, and should never be underestimated in general due to the way it works and the potential it keeps.
There should be a good competition overall this round, Iīm not too curious about Asc tbh, more about the likes of ND and CT and of course any new alliance.
I never understand the whining and hatred towards Ascendancy on the boards, yes, they are usually strong, yes, the road to #1 often went right through their turf, but (except maybe for the pure demonstration of power in round 28) they hardly won a round all alone without contribution of various factors (like enemy stupidity). The only thing that has been pretty much proven lately is that just focusing on Asc in some sort of vendetta wonīt help.
As to rankings predictions, I honestly donīt know, since I canīt seriously judge the strength of several groups.