To much of a gap!

[Cryptic]

Originally Posted by Tis

does anyone else find themselves wondering if motox and almedia are the same person?

I'm wondering if your are up for some hot-leather-man-action

[Geezer77]

Originally Posted by Cryptic

I'm wondering if your are up for some hot-leather-man-action

I am wondering if your gay, or just queer!!

[Cryptic]

Originally Posted by Geezer77

I am wondering if your gay, or just queer!!

neither, I just force myself upon young men to break them

[Bashar]

what's made you suddenly pop up again Cryptic?

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Desse

Should reunion turn on 1up, it will not give them a chance to win, since LcH/ND will most likely turn on them.

As it looks now, they might get 2nd.

Rubbish, with all the 1up have, catching them is not going to be a walk in the park, even if it is 4 V 1. I doubt, which the time left, that it would be viable for ND/LCH to turn on Reunion, because I do not think they would get a lad which justfies it, if a lead at all.

[Game^]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

You made reference to LCH's roid gains yesterday (today when you made the post) - which are only relevant to the incs they received on that day.

You totally ignored what I was responding to: namely that you stated that 1up wouldn't hit the alliance with the lowest roid count per member. 1up DID in fact hit LCH when LCH had the lowerst roid count per member (of the top 4 alliances) - so your point was clearly wrong. Yes, we can go on all day with you totally ignoring the fact that you stated something which is self-evidently wrong.

To reiterate: you said 1up would never do something - yet we'd already done precisely that thing. Pretending that you never said it won't alter the fact that you did - or the fact that an argument based on a false assumption is never going to be reliable.

Originally Posted by Game

Personnally i dont see how the NAP with 1up benefits Reunion anymore, its not like 1up are going to WANT to attack the alliance with the least roids per member now is it.

Please tell me Sid where i said it was gospel that you WOULDNT attack the alliance with the least roids per member, im simply saying that you wouldnt WANT to. Same as with LCH at the moment, you dont want to particularly hit them because the yields gained from them is getting smaller, hence why you DIDNT hit LCH yesterday.

But please feel free to twist the words that I say to completely change the point and make yourself look "clever", oh and then of course round it all off by having the cheek to say im missing the point.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Game^

Please tell me Sid where i said it was gospel that you WOULDNT attack the alliance with the least roids per member, im simply saying that you wouldnt WANT to. Same as with LCH at the moment, you dont want to particularly hit them because the yields gained from them is getting smaller, hence why you DIDNT hit LCH yesterday.

But please feel free to twist the words that I say to completely change the point and make yourself look "clever", oh and then of course round it all off by having the cheek to say im missing the point.

So you say we didn't "want" to hit LCH - but still did. What relevance would it therefore have whether we "want" to hit reunion or not - as you seem to seem to think what we "want" is somehow different to what we do.

Out of the various options available to us at the time, we "wanted" to hit LCH more than we "wanted" to hit the other targets open open to us. How you can therefore say that we didn't "want" to hit LCH baffles me: if there was an option i "wanted" to do more then 1up would have done it.

Maybe you're confusing "want" with "wish" - as in I "wished" there were a fatter alliance than LCH which it made tactical sense to hit, but of the options actually available i "wanted" to hit LCH more than the alternatives.

[Paddy]

Originally Posted by Desse

Should reunion turn on 1up, it will not give them a chance to win, since LcH/ND will most likely turn on them.

As it looks now, they might get 2nd.

Is it just me or is noone getting the point that reunion breaking the NAP with 1up does not automatically mean they will focus all their attacks on 1up. Lets have a look at the possible situations:

1) Reunion and 1up stay napped. The ND vs Reunion war continues. 1up keep hitting LCH or start hitting ND as they look more attractive targets. Reunion finish 2nd or 3rd with 0 chance of 1st as there is absolutely no way that they will catch 1up simply by outroiding them

2) Reunion break the NAP with 1up and immediately start hitting 1up. Doing this would certainly mean that the gap to 1up closed and possibly give Reunion a very slight chance of winning the round. However as has already been pointed out many times this course of action would probably end up benefitting ND more than Reunion

3) Reunion break the NAP with 1up but don't focus entirely on 1up. This would mean that the Reunion vs ND war would stop as Reunion would be at least occasionally hitting 1up. This would leave ND and LCH hitting 1up and bringing them back to Reunion (or at least reducing how quickly they got away). Meanwhile Reunion would be making opportunist attacks on any of the top 3 alliances whilst getting very few incomings themselves. They would grow the quickest of the top 4 alliances (assuming 1up target the people hitting only them, not Reunion) and therefore be in a position whereby if ND and LCH manage to drag 1up back they can then choose their targets more carefully and have a much better chance of getting #1

If Reunion want to finish #1 then it would seem obvious that the best course of action is the 3rd alternative. If however they want a fairly secure 2nd with some possiblity of 3rd they should keep the NAP.

I have tried to be as objective as possible in this reply but being and ND member it is probable that I am at least slightly biased. If you see any flaw in my logic please let me know.

[Agerus]

did you ever consider that Reunion might be happy with 2nd spot in the current situation?

and they will get 2nd in the current situation pretty certainly. With LCH more and more weakened by 1up attacks, ND will soon get heavy incs from Reuinion and 1up and slowly fall down the ranks as well.

[Paddy]

If you are replying to me Agerus try reading my post again. I didn't say Reunion should definately break the NAP. I said that if they want to finish 1st then they should. I also said that if they are happy with 2nd then they should keep the NAP.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Jester

Unlike ND who've bullocksed back and forth generally avoiding incoming by playing proactively in the political arena and reactively in the military arena. A bit like Angels, except Angels didn't really play in the military arena at all.

Which is ofcourse your opinion and even then it'd be a fair and smart strategy.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

So you say we didn't "want" to hit LCH - but still did. What relevance would it therefore have whether we "want" to hit reunion or not - as you seem to seem to think what we "want" is somehow different to what we do.

Out of the various options available to us at the time, we "wanted" to hit LCH more than we "wanted" to hit the other targets open open to us. How you can therefore say that we didn't "want" to hit LCH baffles me: if there was an option i "wanted" to do more then 1up would have done it.

Maybe you're confusing "want" with "wish" - as in I "wished" there were a fatter alliance than LCH which it made tactical sense to hit, but of the options actually available i "wanted" to hit LCH more than the alternatives.

I guess ND and LCH will always have this "relationship" no matter what the political landscape is. Pretty much like the relationship between lch and 1up (who also fought eachother in every round they both played).

[Game^]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Maybe you're confusing "want" with "wish" - as in I "wished" there were a fatter alliance than LCH which it made tactical sense to hit, but of the options actually available i "wanted" to hit LCH more than the alternatives.

I think its more your interpretation of the word "want" to be honest Sid, im more thinking you didnt WANT to hit LCH, but HAD to because of them attacking you. You didnt WANT to hit LCH as their roids offer little benefit as they dont have many, but you HAD to.

This would we be the case with Reunion, you wouldnt WANT to hit them as they offer little return in terms of roids, but you may HAVE to hit Reunion, 2 completely different situations in all honesty.

[Cryptic]

Originally Posted by Bashar

what's made you suddenly pop up again Cryptic?

my WoW server went down so I popped onto IRC and the Forums out of boredom ... and my ego forced me to do a search on my old nick
... was seeing who was still about etc

I noticed Captain Slap head is still at it full throttle ( /me waves at Sid )

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Cryptic

my WoW server went down so I popped onto IRC and the Forums out of boredom ... and my ego forced me to do a search on my old nick
... was seeing who was still about etc

I noticed Captain Slap head is still at it full throttle ( /me waves at Sid )

Thats Captain slap head _Sir_ to you, sunshine.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Game^

I think its more your interpretation of the word "want" to be honest Sid, im more thinking you didnt WANT to hit LCH, but HAD to because of them attacking you. You didnt WANT to hit LCH as their roids offer little benefit as they dont have many, but you HAD to.

This would we be the case with Reunion, you wouldnt WANT to hit them as they offer little return in terms of roids, but you may HAVE to hit Reunion, 2 completely different situations in all honesty.

Game, I think what you fail to see is that we want to hit the target which benefits us most in a tactical way - this does not necessarily have to be the most roid fat target.

Hitting ND is tempting but stupid at the same time (for 1up that is), even though it would grant Reunion some relief with ND then most likely turning on 1up as well. We might get an incredible roid growth for one night that way, but mid-term we'd face a 2-frontier-war which is simply not beneficial for 1up.

[Scorpio]

Originally Posted by Cryptic

I noticed Captain Slap head is still at it full throttle ( /me waves at Sid )

He's set in reverse though (or neutral at best).

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Cryptic

my WoW server went down so I popped onto IRC and the Forums out of boredom ... and my ego forced me to do a search on my old nick
... was seeing who was still about etc

I noticed Captain Slap head is still at it full throttle ( /me waves at Sid )

WoW server down ... you must be playing on Warsong aswell then, known as the "most offline server in wow"

[Paddy]

Originally Posted by Heartless

Game, I think what you fail to see is that we want to hit the target which benefits us most in a tactical way - this does not necessarily have to be the most roid fat target.

Hitting ND is tempting but stupid at the same time (for 1up that is), even though it would grant Reunion some relief with ND then most likely turning on 1up as well. We might get an incredible roid growth for one night that way, but mid-term we'd face a 2-frontier-war which is simply not beneficial for 1up.

This all depends (like Game said) on your definition of "want". You virtually said yourself that 1up want to hit ND but because of the tactical situation of the round they were forced to hit LCH. However another way of interpretting "want" is to say that 1up want to hit the best target tactically and that this is/was LCH. It is all a matter of of how you interpret it. Basically none of you are more right than any other (including Sid in this), it is all a matter of how you interpret it.

[Chika]

Seems ND started hitting 1up as soon as they landed in 2nd place.

[Scorpio]

Originally Posted by Chika

Seems ND started hitting 1up as soon as they landed in 2nd place.

We did?
What a crap night to be gone


I WANT FURBY ROIDS!

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Paddy

This all depends (like Game said) on your definition of "want". You virtually said yourself that 1up want to hit ND but because of the tactical situation of the round they were forced to hit LCH. However another way of interpretting "want" is to say that 1up want to hit the best target tactically and that this is/was LCH. It is all a matter of of how you interpret it. Basically none of you are more right than any other (including Sid in this), it is all a matter of how you interpret it.

I did not say 1up want to hit ND, I said 1up wants to hit where it is tactically most benefitial.

So, no space for any definition of the word "want" in this case. It is tempting to hit ND, which is because you supply roid-fat targets. We, however, don't want to because we're educated and can control our feelings and don't fall for the next best easy girl around the corner.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Heartless

We, however, don't want to because we're educated and can control our feelings and don't fall for the next best easy girl around the corner.

Errr.... bugger, I'd better leave 1up and join NOS, then I can shag everyone around every corner all at the same time.

[Cryptic]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Thats Captain slap head _Sir_ to you, sunshine.

I was busy writing 'tw*t' on Sids drunken forehead in felt tip while you were in the proverbial PA nappies my lover

.... I call no one sir ( although Sid does have my respect as a gamer - and erst while mate )

[Tis]

Originally Posted by Cryptic

I'm wondering if your are up for some hot-leather-man-action

I believe you are confusing me with zhil

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Cryptic

.... I call no one sir ( although Sid does have my respect as a gamer - and erst while mate )

I believe u called me sir, just before you put your tongue in my mouth

[furball]

Originally Posted by Scorpio

I WANT FURBY ROIDS!

EXCUSE ME?!!

[Envious]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

It's not too late for 1up to be beaten, however, Reunions leader is ex 1up, and he seems happy with 2nd.

so, 1up first, Reunion 2nd, hitting ND on 3rd....
replace Reunion by LCH, where does that put us?

[The_Fish]

Well, the goalposts changed slightly today.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Cryptic

I was busy writing 'tw*t' on Sids drunken forehead in felt tip while you were in the proverbial PA nappies my lover

.... I call no one sir ( although Sid does have my respect as a gamer - and erst while mate )

Sorry Sir.

*sob*

[DunkelGraf]

maybe we should have removed the alliance rankings!
nobody knows of the strength/numbers/roids(besides good intel)....... and nobody wants ppl to gang upon the #1
have every ally play to have fun and reach a "position" that suits them well.
be it gaining roids from a "strong" ally, repelling multiple incomming waves, performing some nice fleetcatches....... whatever

this watching at the rankings every tick and start whining: omg, nobody can stop 1up (or whatever ally this might be in the future) from winning now is getting boring

Prost!

[Banned]

Originally Posted by DunkelGraf

this watching at the rankings every tick and start whining: omg, nobody can stop 1up (or whatever ally this might be in the future) from winning now is getting boring

Yeah, it's boring. But we used to have it before alliance ranks too. It could get plenty more insane as well.

The alliance ranks have just given idiots a new thing to point at when they're ranting and raving.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Banned

Yeah, it's boring. But we used to have it before alliance ranks too. It could get plenty more insane as well.

The alliance ranks have just given idiots a new thing to point at when they're ranting and raving.

I resent the accusation that I "rant and rave".

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

I resent the accusation that I "rant and rave".

atleast you raved before someone cut your balls off

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Bashar

Errr.... bugger, I'd better leave 1up and join NOS, then I can shag everyone around every corner all at the same time.

And then you get syfilis and die !!

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by DunkelGraf

maybe we should have removed the alliance rankings!
nobody knows of the strength/numbers/roids(besides good intel)....... and nobody wants ppl to gang upon the #1
have every ally play to have fun and reach a "position" that suits them well.
be it gaining roids from a "strong" ally, repelling multiple incomming waves, performing some nice fleetcatches....... whatever

this watching at the rankings every tick and start whining: omg, nobody can stop 1up (or whatever ally this might be in the future) from winning now is getting boring

Prost!

If there's no alliance rank system, we get back to deciding who won looking at the top planets and top galaxies ... which imo will lead to players and alliances caring more about planet/galaxy ranks rather then the performance of the entire alliance.

Who cares if 80% of your members have a shit score, if you have the top planets and galaxies you'd be considered the alliance which performed best in the old rounds (I'm leaving the block situation and all sorts of variations on that out of this discussion).

Also, since there's no rank system, alot of alliance won't be hitting the "best" alliance but the alliance they dislike the most or the alliance which targets them the most. In that scenario, 1up might end up with alot of alliances aiming at them ... though they are getting used to be in that position