[wakey]

Originally Posted by Tis

TBH, i couldnt be bothered to read all that.... from what i did though, a couple points.

If you honestly believe that BT was an example of the highest organization avaliable in R2, then I really dont see what the point of this arguement is as its clear you wouldnt see reason if it kicked you in the balls. In r2, the community was still figuring out what made an alliance successful and how to recognize those traits. As it turns out, it was Fury and Legion who possessed them, it just took some people a while to recognize that (you more than most it would seem).

The thing is you cant really judge Legion and Furys organsiation skills in round 2. Pretty much the only thing we have to go on when judging both these alliances in r2 is the thing with WaC towards the end of the round and they simply arent a good benchmark as they were a weakened alliance. For most of the round Legion had pretty much been 'hiding' behind WaC whom they were a wing of and Fury had simply done nothing to show any great organsiational skills at this point.. BT and WaC may not have been perfect, in fact far from it but they generally showed a level of professionalism throughout the round that was higher than anyone else was showing. Now with hindsight you can conclude that r3's performance suggests that Fury and Legion were above this level in round 2 but theres simply no evidence to prove this and its actually debatable if Fury and Legion would have even shown the level of professionalism they did in round 3 if they hadnt 'cheated' with their account swapping at the end of round 2 to abuse the option of staying in our galaxies. Would they have seemed so much better than everyone else if they hadnt given themselves this advantage and would they have gone on to dominate without such a safe round for them where they could build up the fear of them in the community and hone their skills. It was round 3 onwards where Legion and Fury set a new level for professionlism, round 2 was just the round that they suggested they might do so right at the end.

Anyway, I always admired F-Crew and a few other small alliances as groups that had fun and didnt take the game seriously. They had good people and could make decent block allies even if they couldnt win on their own. IPC on the other had was rarely worth the 2-3 minutes it took me most rounds to get a spy in.

Im not sure why you are so sensitive on the subject of IPC, but it seems we will have to agree to disagree..

So being able to spy on an alliance makes them poor, well lets just add Legion to the "PA's shittest alliance list" because as most F-crew members know I was able to get pretty much full unrestricted access to Legions resources for a good 3 rounds in a row. There was alot of info I got hold off including a list of co-ords and contact info such as mobile numbers and even some peoples homes numbers which if id felt inclined would have been key info for their rivals. They were just lucky it was me who gained that access and not someone else because others would have used it to their advantage, I just did it orginally to see if i could and then continued to see how long they would take to sort it out. Tbh i dont think theres an alliance out there who hasnt had a spy gain access to their ranks on more than one occasion, even during the WaC war when both F-Crew and WaC were on their toes over breaches we both got spies into each others ranks and I certainly know we got some info which helped us and i'm sure they did the same.

As for why i'm so 'sensitive' on the subject of IPC, its more to do with the members of the big alliances attitude to other alliances in general. They go out to belittle those who havent 'dominated' rounds and try to make their contribution to the game feel worthless. Its the same when ideas for new features are being discussed, you raise the point that the features only good for the big players and alliances and is bad for the small players and your get responces of "so what small players arent important". This is what I take offence too and its not exclusive to the IPC discussion here and until the big alliance members start to realise that everyones contribution no matter how large or small they may be is as important as anyone elses because this idea that only the big alliances acheivements are important is arrogant, conceited and detrimental to the game. IPC held their own for much of the first round and a bit and were an alliance who until the losses agaisnt WaC took their toll were an alliance that 99.9% of alliances wouldnt have even considered taking on unless they had serious backup. And yes they were flawed, but who isnt and yes at times their leadership could have been stronger but this didnt matter because they had something that an alliance dosnt just gain and thats community spirt which helped overcome most of the flaws they had. Most alliance would have died for a community like IPC had because its something which is a major boost to any alliance and can be something which can tip a pretty even battle (or even one where your the underdogs) in your favour. Its also rare for alliances to stick to their principles and beliefs in the way IPC have which is made even more remarkable by the fact that their principles are one which puts them at a disadvatage at the start . Many alliances have 'sold out' in the search for glory yet IPC havent. Theres alot IPC have brought to this game and alot they should be respected for and not simply dismissed as they often are simply because they dont match up to the levels Fury and Legion set in r3/r4/ect . After all Fury and Legion dont really match upto my view of a perfect alliance with the bending of rules and questionable tactics they employed and while I'll state my opionions on there actions you stil see me saying I respect what they acheived even if i didnt agree with every way they acheived it. Give IPC the praise they deserve and dont just slag them off to look good.