[Light]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Personally I do think xVx winning would be a worse thing for the game than Ascendancy winning again, although I don't think either is going to prove significant harmful in the long run unless we wind up with a similar situation next round (which I don't believe we will). Winning off the back of what xVx are winning off is just meaningless to the point where signing up to take part seems utterly pointless. I actually expressed an opinion to this extent pre-round on the sheer futility that would be a round where the only meaningful question is can a massive block hit Ascendancy for long enough to prevent them from winning. It sounds like instead of a game we're trying to balance a mathematical formula.

Im struggling to see why xVx winning instead of Asc winning would be more harmful for the game? As the only two people in contention for #1 are Asc and xVx, basically what you're saying is.. Asc winning is better for the game than Asc losing? I cant help but laugh at that statement.

You then go on to say that xVx winning would be meaningless? Well if its meaningless then it isnt that bad for the game, while Asc winning 4 in a row and continuing to dominate has meaning and is incredibly bad for the game.

If Asc was thinking 'what was best for the game' then they wouldnt of even signed up to play this round. Instead, they signed up and recruited 20-40% over the alliance limit to try and seal there victory. Instead, your only playing that card now as you're getting bashed and its the only excuse you can find to try and stop the block.

I'm still laughing that you're actually trying to play the 'whats best for the game' card. When just last week, Asc was more than happy to continue nap'ing xVx and cruise to victory.