Round Report 5 august 2007

[Kargool]

Well, I said i would write one more post on the current situation and so, here it is.

First to summarize on the few events that have happened outside the alliance ranks.

First, with one week to go, it seems quite clear that the win will go to a value planet this round.

If Elviz manages to pull off yet another steal to cause the win remains to be seen, he does have the advantage, and he seems to have a bigger stack than his closest competitors, but with the production to hide resources strategy you can never be fully secure on who has the most resources stacked.

In the galaxy race it seems more likely that the race is already settled, 4:3 seems to have a good lead on 2:4 and others trailing strongly. I would expect nothing else but a full victory for the guys in 4:3.

In the race of becoming the best XP whore we seem to have a quite clear winner already in 13 6 4 , although everything can happen still at this stage, and with one week left we're bound to see lots of xp whores trying to fight themselves upwards in the ranking.

So back to the alliance race.

The thriller finish doesn't seem to end in regards to alliances. There are still 5 alliances with a good chance to win, allthough two seem to have lost slightly in pace, and seem to be to far away, but its still anyones game.

CT have been under heavy fire from VGN/JEN/TGV and the Triad seem to have gained the upper hand against CT. However CT is still a dark horse who can easily recover and this could actually go down to be all about the spending of resources on the last day.

ND seems to be trying to fight their way into top 5 but seems to be having problems passing ROCK whom seem to have fallen slightly off into inactivity.

Subh have picked up the pace slightly and seem to be trying to get back at ND, but so far, their scoregainage has not been fully up with the ND gains.

Behind Subh again each alliance follow like a lone little island of score behind each other and it seems pretty set for rank from 7 to 21st.

For those who like to sodomize themselves while reading about alliances nobody else would care about:

The interesting fights we see here is that TiT and StrongHold are battling it off in a close battle for 21st. While ZikUnion had an enourmous roid/shiploss at about 2mill scores worth today and its unlikely they will recover from such a horror.


Of other rumors that the grapevine is putting up is the return of several alliances next round.

After Insomnia waking up and deciding to wanting to play again others have followed suit.
Ministry have declared that they are playing, and there are strong rumors that both Destiny and eXilition are gonna play round 23.

Will this cause another huge collapse of the alliances who currently hold the top spots and what alliances will dissolve seems all pretty unclear. Time will tell, and the only thing for certain now is that the round will end next friday. (I think)

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Kargool

In the race of becoming the best XP whore we seem to have a quite clear winner already in 13 6 4 , although everything can happen still at this stage, and with one week left we're bound to see lots of xp whores trying to fight themselves upwards in the ranking.

Hadn't I become lazy and stopped attacking for 2-3 days I'd still be #1. I'm only 9k behind #1 now though and it should only take me two landings to fly past him (given that he doesn't land). I'll try my best to make your prediction fail anyway

Nice writeup.

[AdmV0rl0n]

Kargool,

We will both recover and reach our aim for this round.

ZU out.

[Luckyiam.PSC]

Never underestimate the power of finance centers kargool

[NitinA]

Are we supposed to ignore the embedded propaganda, seeing how this was written by a TGV HC, about Conspiracy needing the pressure to be kept on them because they have good odds of bouncing back? TGV now have a 2mil score lead, and 1 less player in tag than any of the other competitors. A 2 million lead is actually the biggest lead for #1 I've seen in a few weeks. Coupled with a roid lead aswell, it could prove key to victory. I wonder if Vgn are content with staying #2.

[[Smurf]Pies]

so what are u saying? Ministry are winning? ;-)

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by Kargool

The interesting fights we see here is that TiT and StrongHold are battling it off in a close battle for 21st. While ZikUnion had an enourmous roid/shiploss at about 2mill scores worth today and its unlikely they will recover from such a horror.

We're 200k in score behind trans now. So much for the 'unlikely to recover' blurb Kargool.

[Satyr]

Originally Posted by Kargool

If Elviz manages to pull off yet another steal to cause the win remains to be seen, he does have the advantage, and he seems to have a bigger stack than his closest competitors, but with the production to hide resources strategy you can never be fully secure on who has the most resources stacked.

Not even close on this one Kargool, a few scans (and just looking at their size) should give you a completely different view :/

[Veedeejem!]

62 InSomnia 389 1 758,886 758,886

we will be victorious!!!!!

[gzambo]

with the dramatic roid losses jenova suffered today you might be better doing a daily report until ticks stop

[Willzzz]

Originally Posted by gzambo

with the dramatic roid losses jenova suffered today you might be better doing a daily report until ticks stop

Funny you should bring this up. Correct we had major lossess today, due to of course Rock, VSN ND and a bit of orbit launching on us. I have to admit guys it was quite well organised. Problem was, a lot of you seem to not understand though not to land if it means killing all of your ships (ie we had a lot of suiciders) You can probably tell becuase we lost a huge -16% on roids but only -0.05% on score. Like to add this was also due to quite a rather big planet leaving in tag. (i hate those players)

So i will give credit where credit is due. You did an excellent job on roiding us, however, you didnt do to well with suiciding.

[gzambo]

Originally Posted by Willzzz

Funny you should bring this up. Correct we had major lossess today, due to of course Rock, VSN ND and a bit of orbit launching on us. I have to admit guys it was quite well organised. Problem was, a lot of you seem to not understand though not to land if it means killing all of your ships (ie we had a lot of suiciders) You can probably tell becuase we lost a huge -16% on roids but only -0.05% on score. Like to add this was also due to quite a rather big planet leaving in tag. (i hate those players)

So i will give credit where credit is due. You did an excellent job on roiding us, however, you didnt do to well with suiciding.

dunno bout the others but i dont think we suffered too much by suiciding (as you call it ) on jen planets
and funnily enough all those alliances that you mention show score gains not losses according to sandmans
claiming your low score gain was attributed to losing a player yet you still have 70 in tag , is this finally an admission by jenova hc that you have abused the support planet rule

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by gzambo

dunno bout the others but i dont think we suffered too much by suiciding (as you call it ) on jen planets
and funnily enough all those alliances that you mention show score gains not losses according to sandmans
claiming your low score gain was attributed to losing a player yet you still have 70 in tag , is this finally an admission by jenova hc that you have abused the support planet rule

Apperantly VGN has a support alliance where one of the members have had 45% of all his deffleets being sendt to VGN!

[furball]

With only TGV and Conspiracy realistically left to challenge Vengeance for the #1 spot, the current political alliances (Vengeance/TGV/Jenova vs CT & pals) surely won't last much longer. There's certainly nothing left in it for TGV anymore, they really should be angling for #1 from here onwards.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by furball

With only TGV and Conspiracy realistically left to challenge Vengeance for the #1 spot, the current political alliances (Vengeance/TGV/Jenova vs CT & pals) surely won't last much longer. There's certainly nothing left in it for TGV anymore, they really should be angling for #1 from here onwards.

I dont see why we should decide to turn and backstab VGN just because they are winning. The Triad won the round, and whomever ends on top of VGN and TGV has the other to thank for it, so no, we wont break our nap with them. Winning isnt everything.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Kargool

I dont see why we should decide to turn and backstab VGN just because they are winning. The Triad won the round, and whomever ends on top of VGN and TGV has the other to thank for it, so no, we wont break our nap with them. Winning isnt everything.

Originally Posted by Talin

Except this is not round five, blocks don't win anymore, "The Triad" was merely a coop to get rid of one of the contenders, and VGN will (as it stands) win alone?

Welcome to the effect of alliance rankings, Kargool. When people look back on Round 22, they won't see TGV's involvement. They won't respect whatever TGV for 'The Triad', they'll just see Vengeance occupying the #1 spot and think no more of it.


So don't delude yourself. Yes, before we had alliance rankings then blocks could be credited with the win. That's not the case anymore, all anyone will do is look at 1st place and the name of the alliance occupying that rank.


It makes no sense at all not to go for the win at this point in time, none whatsoever.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by furball

Welcome to the effect of alliance rankings, Kargool. When people look back on Round 22, they won't see TGV's involvement. They won't respect whatever TGV for 'The Triad', they'll just see Vengeance occupying the #1 spot and think no more of it.


So don't delude yourself. Yes, before we had alliance rankings then blocks could be credited with the win. That's not the case anymore, all anyone will do is look at 1st place and the name of the alliance occupying that rank.


It makes no sense at all not to go for the win at this point in time, none whatsoever.

That is a somewhat lame statement, there will be a lot of people who will remember what has happend during previous rounds, but I guess you who maybe feel somewhat out of touch with the community wont understand this.

However, winning by backstabbing has never been a preferred hobby of mine, and the politics of this round will maybe be brought into next round too, who knows.

You cant really say that we are not willing to go for first just because we're not willing to attack an alliance that we have napped. Your reasoning is based on the fact that winning is the only thing that matters, maybe it is that for you, but its not they way TGV plays, and never will be.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Kargool

That is a somewhat lame statement, there will be a lot of people who will remember what has happend during previous rounds, but I guess you who maybe feel somewhat out of touch with the community wont understand this.

A nice dig at my retirement, well played but I really couldn't give a shit. It's fairly obvious that nothing has really changed - anyway, riddle me this, who won Round 10.5, FAnG or FPM?

Originally Posted by Kargool

However, winning by backstabbing has never been a preferred hobby of mine, and the politics of this round will maybe be brought into next round too, who knows.

Winning is winning, it's simply a question of fortitude. You can win this round, there's nothing stopping you aside from having the guts to do so.

If Vengeance were in the position you're in, they'd go for you no questions asked. You wouldn't even be able to complain about their decision to break the NAP, since it'd hardly be unexpected.


Do you really think that Vengeance haven't considered that you might attack them? Perhaps they're considering attacking you on one of the last nights to make sure that you don't overtake them - after all, the best defence is a good offence.

Originally Posted by Kargool

You cant really say that we are not willing to go for first just because we're not willing to attack an alliance that we have napped. Your reasoning is based on the fact that winning is the only thing that matters, maybe it is that for you, but its not they way TGV plays, and never will be.

Did Reunion ever get any credit for their Round 14 alliance with 1up? No. Did NewDawn get credit for taking the lead in Round 15 and trying to war against eXilition before they succumbed to the inevitable? Yes. But for the Ascendancy victory, would NewDawn have been given a lot of credit for putting up a strong fight against 1up? Undoubtedly. Were Omen given credit for the effort they put in in Round 17? Certainly. Were all Round 19 alliances that weren't eXilition laughed at for not doing anything about them until it was too late? Yes they were...actually I'm still lolling now.


Perhaps my point might get through to you, perhaps not. However, I've attempted to produce evidence to show that where alliances have a chance of going for #1 and not taking them, they never look good in retrospect.

[Talin]

Except this is not round five, blocks don't win anymore, "The Triad" was merely a coop to get rid of one of the contenders, and VGN will (as it stands) win alone?

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Talin

Except this is not round five, blocks don't win anymore, "The Triad" was merely a coop to get rid of one of the contenders, and VGN will (as it stands) win alone?

oh im sorry mister oldschool moron, i didnt know that pre pax rounds had copyrights on the blockwars.

If you had any knowledge of what had been going on this round you would have known that this was a classic blockwar round.

[Talin]

Originally Posted by Kargool

oh im sorry mister oldschool moron, i didnt know that pre pax rounds had copyrights on the blockwars.

Funny, I would've thought that forced tag limits, tag score, and relevant alliance rankings (all of which you seem to support) made it pretty obvious that in the current setup, #1 ranked alliance wins, and other alliances lose?

[hylands]

talin ct wasn't the only contender halfway of the round there were 6 contenders still 3 allied to eachother the other 3 also. and well the tgv/jen/vgn "BLOCK" won the match with all 3 in top 4 and if lucky places 1 and 2

[hylands]

the top spot has been changing till yesterday

[Talin]

And it can keep changing until the very last tick, but I still don't see how can you fit two or three alliances into it. Only one will eventually win.

Wheter the alliances involved choose to make it happen by luck/stockpiles, or by actually trying to claim the win for themselves. The choice is up to you, as are the consequences.

[Makhil]

Originally Posted by Kargool

After Insomnia waking up and deciding to wanting to play again others have followed suit.
Ministry have declared that they are playing, and there are strong rumors that both Destiny and eXilition are gonna play round 23.

I thought Insomnia and Destiny were the same...

[Mek]

Originally Posted by Makhil

I thought Insomnia and Destiny were the same...

nope. When inSomnia anounced they were not playing (start of r18) the core split in several directions. Most stayed together and went to Escape or eXilition.

Then round 19 i took a small core to play for ToF as a Battlegroup

Round 20 Destiny was formed with about 25 or so ex InSomnia players in the ranks. Destiny command, iirc, contained only 1 ex InSomnia command in antigone, rest were officers.

Destiny, as im sure, wouldnt like to be labled as 'inSomnia v2.0'

and tbh it isnt inSomnia without Jonas, a player who never played the round with Destiny

[Gerbie2]

The 'triad' has been losing roids lately due to the many alliances targetting them. And CT is close on TGVs tail. I doubt CT would offer TGV the rounds victory on a silver platter in case of a backstab. So I doubt TGV can win if they decided to face CT + its many allies alone and backstab VGN.

[Cooling]

Lets be honest guys. The only serious battle this round is the Total Roids Lost race. At this point I think Jester has it all but tied up.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Cooling

Lets be honest guys. The only serious battle this round is the Total Roids Lost race. At this point I think Jester has it all but tied up.

Hmm, do i smell a new rule coming up? No longer allowed to initiate roids in the thousands to win the lost roids race?

[furball]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

Yeah. Evidently, the winner picked the correct fights to fight, and didn't fight the fights they shouldn't have fought - after all, they did end up winning.

Er, I said that not Kargool

Originally Posted by Kargool

Why ofc, the one of the three alliances that co-operated and ended first will win the round, and the two others wont, I was just pointing out that most likely wouldnt either TGV nor VGN end where they did if they hadnt co-operated. I was not saying TGV deserved the win more than VGN or vice versa.

So why not put yourself in a situation where you deserve the win? You are within touching distance of the #1 spot and with appropriate political manouvering can make sure that you hold it to the end of the round.


DON'T YOU WANT TO WIN OR SOMETHING????

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by furball

Er, I said that not Kargool




So why not put yourself in a situation where you deserve the win? You are within touching distance of the #1 spot and with appropriate political manouvering can make sure that you hold it to the end of the round.


DON'T YOU WANT TO WIN OR SOMETHING????

I sure hope you never get to HC an alliance ever again. I would hate to have dealings with an alliance with you as HC whom could turn on your partners whenever you saw it fit.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Kargool

I sure hope you never get to HC an alliance ever again. I would hate to have dealings with an alliance with you as HC whom could turn on your partners whenever you saw it fit.

That sounds like fighting talk to me. Didn't think you had it in you.



As I said already, Vengeance would be fools to have not considered the possibility that you and/or Jenova might choose to break the alliance. I'm not sure on what basis you negotiated the alliance initally, but if you agreed for it to be a permanent alliance with a mutual defence agreement (so that if Alliance C attacks Alliance B, Alliance A will defend Alliance B) then I'd say that that's nothing but foolish politics.


Would you be condemned for breaking the alliance if you chose to do so at this point, in an attempt to go for the win? I don't think so.

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by furball

That sounds like fighting talk to me. Didn't think you had it in you.



As I said already, Vengeance would be fools to have not considered the possibility that you and/or Jenova might choose to break the alliance. I'm not sure on what basis you negotiated the alliance initally, but if you agreed for it to be a permanent alliance with a mutual defence agreement (so that if Alliance C attacks Alliance B, Alliance A will defend Alliance B) then I'd say that that's nothing but foolish politics.


Would you be condemned for breaking the alliance if you chose to do so at this point, in an attempt to go for the win? I don't think so.

Whats the point in having alliances limited to 70 if people simply sideline it by large scale political agreements?

If you have mutual defensive pacts, then thats just support planets on mass driving trucks through any premise of 70 player limits or anything else.

Course, many of you are going to post denying this. So don't bother. You don't need to say it, its already understood.

Ad

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Kargool

I sure hope you never get to HC an alliance ever again. I would hate to have dealings with an alliance with you as HC whom could turn on your partners whenever you saw it fit.

Its hardly turning on partners though. These partnership agreements arent supposed to be things set in stone, they are supposed to be fluid so that once the aim of the partnership is achieved (which I would say you had achieved) then all bets should have been off and it should have been a fight to the finish

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by wakey

Its hardly turning on partners though. These partnership agreements arent supposed to be things set in stone, they are supposed to be fluid so that once the aim of the partnership is achieved (which I would say you had achieved) then all bets should have been off and it should have been a fight to the finish

There you go again, saying things like "supposed to be" and "should have been". You may want to consider stopping telling people what they should do in PA.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

There you go again, saying things like "supposed to be" and "should have been". You may want to consider stopping telling people what they should do in PA.

You should have a go at me as well then, I've just spent the last six posts telling Kargool that TGV should go for the win.



Welcome to AD, by the way.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

There you go again, saying things like "supposed to be" and "should have been". You may want to consider stopping telling people what they should do in PA.

Except its not just me. What the likes of yourself and Kargool are forgetting is that round after round a large amount of this community, no doubt including Kargool, complained about people fence sitting through the use of naps hence aiding stagnation of the rounds. The rankings are there to discourage round long agreements that do little more than Kingmaking.

Thats the problem with so much of this community, either so many of the community lacks the intelligence to remember anything past a round ago OR they are simply hypocritical fools who moan about things until they are in the same situation when their principles go out of the window.

VGN will be expecting you to turn, as people always say to me it is after all a war game and war is only about winners. Your agreement has acheived what it was intending and no-ones gonna have hard feeling about the two of you going tooth and nail for the last 36 hours or so to see who wins, if anything both alliances will gain alot more respect in the community for doing so as the winner will prove they are the worthy alliance and the loser will atleast be seen to have had a go

[Mzyxptlk]

I'm quite adept at doublethink.

[Talin]

Technically they should do whatever the hell they feel like doing, and for whatever reason, which is kind of the point. I don't have a problem with that at all.

Only problem is that they try to make the whole situation look like something different than it is in reality. I guess they think it'll make them look "better" or something equally silly.

And the reality is that three contenders bashed one outside of the contest (there were never 6 real contenders for the round, be serious guys), one alliance ends up in front, others do not wish to challenge that alliance and try to claim the round for themselves. Simple as that.

What's also ironic is that Kargool as one of the involved HCs started a thread titled "Why the wars between alliances aren't profitable anymore?". Providing TGV had the power to wage a blitz campaign in the right moment, they could've managed their first ever round win - how can it possibly get more profitable than that?

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Talin

What's also ironic is that Kargool as one of the involved HCs started a thread titled "Why the wars between alliances aren't profitable anymore?". Providing TGV had the power to wage a blitz campaign in the right moment, they could've managed their first ever round win - how can it possibly get more profitable than that?

It would indeed be profitable, and I am quite confident that we are in a position which would allow us to do such an attempt, however, thats not how I nor TGV conduct themselves towards people that have been helping out and being partners in the round.

[Mzyxptlk]

I merely chose the VGN/TGV issue as an example to point out that you always seem to be trying to tell people how they should act, how Planetarion should be played and that your way of playing is the only 'real' one. You did it with the support planet thing, with the 0 roid cov op planet thing, with Transcendancy, and you do it again now.

Also, I'm neither in VGN nor in TGV, I'm just an innocent bystander.

Originally Posted by furball

You should have a go at me as well then, I've just spent the last six posts telling Kargool that TGV should go for the win.

Allow me to give you a slightly more serious response as well:
What you're doing is pointing out a single decision which in your eyes is the wrong one. You think TGV should break the nap with VGN, because that's the best course of action for them, and indeed the only one that will enable (though not ensure) them to overtake them. What wakey is doing is saying that having a nap that is not beneficial to you is wrong, and that it "should" not be allowed. The difference should be obvious.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

I merely chose the VGN/TGV issue as an example to point out that you always seem to be trying to tell people how they should act, how Planetarion should be played and that your way of playing is the only 'real' one. You did it with the support planet thing, with the 0 roid cov op planet thing, with Transcendancy, and you do it again now.

Also, I'm neither in VGN nor in TGV, I'm just an innocent bystander.

Yeah because two examples makes that true, one of which (in the cov op case) is nothing short of a piss take that makes no attempt to take this game seriously and only complete idiots can ever think its acceptable that these damaging players to the game as a whole are an asset and not just a cancer on the game that needs rid from this game once and for all

Allow me to give you a slightly more serious response as well:
What you're doing is pointing out a single decision which in your eyes is the wrong one. You think TGV should break the nap with VGN, because that's the best course of action for them, and indeed the only one that will enable (though not ensure) them to overtake them. What wakey is doing is saying that having a nap that is not beneficial to you is wrong, and that it "should" not be allowed. The difference should be obvious.

No what you really mean is furball isnt an easy target where as you can attack me and get lost of props from the rest of the community as thats the trendy thing to do. furball has said the exact same thing as me, he has pointed out that the rankings push for a fluid form of politics not the static kingmaking politics of old. This is exactly what I have said, except ive also suggested that its not just the game but the reeducation that some of the community (such as 1up) have done to has added to that. Its what every alliance expects when it enters such agreements in modern PA and the agreement produces the intended goal. If the boot was on the other foot you can guarantee VGN wouldn't hesitate

TBH TGV for kingmaking really deserve to have the 2nd place taken off them by the rest of us mass launching on them as its what such gutless play at the end truly deserves

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by wakey

TBH TGV for kingmaking really deserve to have the 2nd place taken off them by the rest of us mass launching on them as its what such gutless play at the end truly deserves

So for not backstabbing our allies we deserve the entire universe to launch on us?

Gee, your rethorics are getting smarter and smarter by the day, at the moment i would rate you just below a monkey.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Kargool

So for not backstabbing our allies we deserve the entire universe to launch on us?

Gee, your rethorics are getting smarter and smarter by the day, at the moment i would rate you just below a monkey.

No for kingmaking you deserve to have people take a stand. I thought we had got rid of such gutless tactics, tactics which youd be the first to shout about if wasnt TGV

[Wandows]

Originally Posted by wakey

Yeah because two examples makes that true, one of which (in the cov op case) is nothing short of a piss take that makes no attempt to take this game seriously and only complete idiots can ever think its acceptable that these damaging players to the game as a whole are an asset and not just a cancer on the game that needs rid from this game once and for all

Sure, lets blame the gamer for playing within game limits . Unlike some ppl seem to think, war* games aren't meant to be nice.

Except its not just me. What the likes of yourself and Kargool are forgetting is that round after round a large amount of this community, no doubt including Kargool, complained about people fence sitting through the use of naps hence aiding stagnation of the rounds. The rankings are there to discourage round long agreements that do little more than Kingmaking.

Thats the problem with so much of this community, either so many of the community lacks the intelligence to remember anything past a round ago OR they are simply hypocritical fools who moan about things until they are in the same situation when their principles go out of the window.

There is quite a big difference between kingmaking and having some sort of agreement with eachother. Kingmaking would be the sole purpose of enabling the other party to win**, what has happened seems a lot more like a deal to fend off a common enemy and simply respect who ever comes on top in the end. Whether or not such an agreement will be broken by the one not winning all depends on that alliance its confidence and feeling towards ending an agreement for personal gain (and perhaps the affect this would have in future rounds). With all the top alliances exchanging fire, this round hardly came close to fence sitting (apart from individual planets as usual). Sure blocks were formed, but it seems to have worked out well to keep the end interesting -> blocks/naps aren't bad by definition, it only sucks when weeks before the end the winner is known, nothing is happening anymore and we all just have to wait for the round to end.

*i realise this a bold statement with PA, but i guess it somewhat fits in that category.
**ofcourse 1up and eXi both showed that kingmaking is very tricky to pull off.

[Talin]

Originally Posted by wakey

TBH TGV for kingmaking really deserve to have the 2nd place taken off them by the rest of us mass launching on them as its what such gutless play at the end truly deserves

Heh, this sounds quite familiar.

On a sidenote, I'm tempted to dig out what Kargool was posting during the certain two rounds when ND and Subh preformed similar acts. I even might put an effort into doing that eventually.

However, I do remember very well what he was saying about R13's NoS "achievement", and what TGV did this round is not far away from that (although admittedly on a smaller scale in a lower profile round).

But as I said, there's no need to push TGV into doing anything, and I do disagree that people should play the way wakey (or anyone else) feels "it's proper". Sure people complain about kingmaking and fencesitting and lots of other things that don't benefit them, but that's mostly in the heat of a moment, and shouldn't really dictate how alliances should behave. If someone quits over something silly as that, he wasn't playing the right game to begin with.

People should play the way they like to play and the way they feel is right. But my point is that they shouldn't bother trying to make their actions and achievements look like something they are not. Kingmaking will always be kingmaking, and fencesitting will always be fencesitting. But there's no need to make a fuss about that.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Talin

Heh, this sounds quite familiar.

On a sidenote, I'm tempted to dig out what Kargool was posting during the certain two rounds when ND and Subh preformed similar acts. I even might put an effort into doing that eventually.

However, I do remember very well what he was saying about R13's NoS "achievement", and what TGV did this round is not far away from that (although admittedly on a smaller scale in a lower profile round).

But as I said, there's no need to push TGV into doing anything, and I do disagree that people should play the way wakey (or anyone else) feels "it's proper". Sure people complain about kingmaking and fencesitting and lots of other things that don't benefit them, but that's mostly in the heat of a moment, and shouldn't really dictate how alliances should behave. If someone quits over something silly as that, he wasn't playing the right game to begin with.

People should play the way they like to play and the way they feel is right. But my point is that they shouldn't bother trying to make their actions and achievements look like something they are not. Kingmaking will always be kingmaking, and fencesitting will always be fencesitting. But there's no need to make a fuss about that.

Well, in this case our actions and achievements should point to the facts that we honor the naps and agreements we've made, and if VGN had been in our place we would have hoped that they would have done the same, as Wandows correctly applied, if this had been earlier in the round and we had just handed them the win without doing anything, we might have been called kingmakers, but in this case breaking the nap with VGN just because we wanted to win would have in my eyes been the dishonorable way to end the round for TGV. After all, some people try to play this game and to keep to their promises. If that is something that is frowned upon by the community then so be it. I couldn't care less.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Well, in this case our actions and achievements should point to the facts that we honor the naps and agreements we've made, and if VGN had been in our place we would have hoped that they would have done the same, as Wandows correctly applied, if this had been earlier in the round and we had just handed them the win without doing anything, we might have been called kingmakers, but in this case breaking the nap with VGN just because we wanted to win would have in my eyes been the dishonorable way to end the round for TGV. After all, some people try to play this game and to keep to their promises. If that is something that is frowned upon by the community then so be it. I couldn't care less.

For someone who couldnt care you seemed awfully peeved at me if the insults you sent me via IRC PM are to go by

[Zirikk]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Well, in this case our actions and achievements should point to the facts that we honor the naps and agreements we've made, and if VGN had been in our place we would have hoped that they would have done the same

I'm sure they'd play better and they would have broken the nap. But that's the difference between winning alliance and losing alliance.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Talin

But as I said, there's no need to push TGV into doing anything, and I do disagree that people should play the way wakey (or anyone else) feels "it's proper". Sure people complain about kingmaking and fencesitting and lots of other things that don't benefit them, but that's mostly in the heat of a moment, and shouldn't really dictate how alliances should behave. If someone quits over something silly as that, he wasn't playing the right game to begin with.

People should play the way they like to play and the way they feel is right. But my point is that they shouldn't bother trying to make their actions and achievements look like something they are not. Kingmaking will always be kingmaking, and fencesitting will always be fencesitting. But there's no need to make a fuss about that.

TBH i'm fairly open to people playing how they want to as long as its not detrimental to the wider game. While I do have a problem with zero roid covopers as I feel it goes too far and ends up in an area that if its not abuse is very close, I wouldn't generally be against people kingmaking or fencesitting as thats their choice. However what annoyed me and made me post is the hypocrisy on show by Kargool. While its a common occurance with Kargool (he moans at others for abuse on forums/rep comments but is one of the most guilty of doing it and has done things like moan about alliance kicking members to merge only to have his alliance do the same weeks later) you cant complain and then hide behind "we dont want to backstab". Either you stfu and dont ask others to do so and your get a pass when you dont either or you complain and when your in that situation you live or die on your sword