Planetarion Forums - why Phraktos did it

Tomkat · 15 May 2004, 03:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mouse

What I ment was that it seems you are content at being 2nd or 3rd until Phraktos killed themselves. And in my impression never realy gunnerd for 1st spot. Ofc beeing nice and loyal are good qualities too and I'm sure you'll bee able to point at this round next time you wanna "win" the round by backing up someone. However that's not realy what it's about.

You're right, we never did gun for top spot.

We weren't actually planning on playing 10.5 seriously, we were gearing up for round 11. We thought "ah sod it, let's play anyway", and have come 2nd. Which is pretty good, for a new alliance who wasn't planning on playing the round (in my very humble and biased opinion).

Cayl · 15 May 2004, 23:55

Its that kind of attitude from alliance leadership that leads to blocking. Whether or not you personally were part of that decision, its obvious that that was Mistu's attitude. Its been the attitude of many alliances who block and "win" but realize that they're just not cut out to be a top shelf alliance. "Well we're ranked #3 now, but without our friends we wouldn't be in the top 10, so no sense in upsetting the pile".

If every alliance were gunning for #1, blocking might occur for a while, but once a set of alliances "won" they would be a lot more interested in settling exactly -which- alliance is the best.

Synthetic_Sid · 16 May 2004, 01:07

There's also a relevant difference between recent rounds and old rounds. There never used to be any official in-game method for determing which alliance won the round - hence the arguments (which some still continue) over which alliance was the winner in certain rounds. With the introduction of official in-gam alliance rankings there can be no debate over which alliance won a round. Unless something dramatic happens in the next few days (and i've no expectation at all that it will) FAng will have won this round - and there's no grey area to argue over. People can complain about the WAY Fang won - but have no basis on which to dispute the fact that they did.

Finishing second just makes you the highest-ranked loser.

lokken · 16 May 2004, 01:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rumad

MISTU were far from second fiddle to FAnG and in fact had more clout than you are portraying them to have, We could have broken a lot sooner, but James was insistent on not breaking any ties as agrements had been made.

They have done well for there firs round - dont underestimate them and there abilities. By far they were better than Phraktos and were good allies to have. Cudos where cudos is due

They had a choice - breakaway, get with the rest of the alliances and attack you and win and get top in the rankings.

Ergo, 2nd are they and no joint win for them.

Had phraktos succeeded they would have finished 1st and thoroughly deserved it, as would any alliance that broke away from the FPM block.

F0rk · 16 May 2004, 01:42

As we were a new alliance we didn't know exactly how things would pan out. We managed to establish a good rappor with FaNG and have enjoyed playing alongside with them. We had several situations where a third party came along with a 'plan' how to knock FaNG down, with MISTU being enticed into going against them. We were never going to go along with this as we had committed to FaNG and had no plans on stabbing them in the back. We knew that MISTU wouldnt win (in the Syn_Sid sense) as we are newly established and such an idea would be over optimistic. I however believe that our members are all winners in the sense of the acheivement that they have attained from being part of a new alliance. I take my hat off to them.

Cayl · 16 May 2004, 04:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by F0rk

I however believe that our members are all winners in the sense of the acheivement that they have attained from being part of a new alliance. I take my hat off to them.

What is this, the special olympics?

Wouldn't you rather be the brand new alliance who threw themselves together, played a smart political game, then played an even better military game to steal the win from the odds-on favorite? Do you know how inspiring that would be? People would have told your story for the next 12 rounds whenever they started a new alliance. Instead you're going to be known as "Who were FAnG's allies that one half round? *shrug*"

And if FAnG and Phraktos were sportsmanlike they wouldn't see this as backstabbing at all. You would go and say, ok we've done it, we're down to us three, now lets have a friendly competition and see who's really the best. We enjoyed working with you, and perhaps next round we can do it again.

Forest · 16 May 2004, 06:58

Mistu's command were that they would never risk losing.

Fork/RealJames were Eclipse hc last round. They stood and watched Ely recruit to #1, for fear of losing, and there is no reason to suggest they would try anything but the same this round.

Fyodor · 16 May 2004, 08:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cayl

steal the win from the odds-on favorite?

Heh, seems to me Fang had about 15 solid members or so 2 weeks before the start of the round. How does this fact sigure into your odds on favorite? Only through Fantastic leadership, awsome defense and not much competition where Fang able to run away with the round. I dont think many people would have bet on this outcome at the end of PAX.

Banned · 16 May 2004, 08:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cayl

Wouldn't you rather be the brand new alliance who threw themselves together, played a smart political game, then played an even better military game to steal the win from the odds-on favorite? Do you know how inspiring that would be?

I knew some guys who did something like that. They all ended up hating the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fyodor

Heh, seems to me Fang had about 15 solid members or so 2 weeks before the start of the round. How does this fact sigure into your odds on favorite? Only through Fantastic leadership, awsome defense and not much competition where Fang able to run away with the round. I dont think many people would have bet on this outcome at the end of PAX.

What exactly is an awesome defense in PA terms? I've heard of awesome attacks, solid defenses. But an awesome defense? Is that a defense that's so overkill the entire universe launches on your alliance because they don't have any reserves left?

Fyodor · 16 May 2004, 08:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned

Is that a defense that's so overkill the entire universe launches on your alliance because they don't have any reserves left?

not really sure what you mean here or what you are talking about. all i know, is fangs dc's did an awsome job this round. flame all you want, but this is my belief.

Synthetic_Sid · 16 May 2004, 08:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fyodor

Heh, seems to me Fang had about 15 solid members or so 2 weeks before the start of the round. How does this fact sigure into your odds on favorite? Only through Fantastic leadership, awsome defense and not much competition where Fang able to run away with the round. I dont think many people would have bet on this outcome at the end of PAX.

You probably misunderstand Cayl. He was referring to the possibility of MFP splitting after they'd beaten the rest - at which point FAng WERE the odds-on favourite for #1. I don't think he was trying to say that FAng started the round as odds-on favourite.

Banned · 16 May 2004, 08:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

You probably misunderstand Cayl. He was referring to the possibility of MFP splitting after they'd beaten the rest - at which point FAng WERE the odds-on favourite for #1. I don't think he was trying to say that FAng started the round as odds-on favourite.

It's spelled FAnG, with emphasis on the F, A and G.

Fyodor · 16 May 2004, 08:43

yuh, now that ive re read it, that makes sense. My bad.

Banned · 16 May 2004, 08:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fyodor

not really sure what you mean here or what you are talking about. all i know, is fangs dc's did an awsome job this round. flame all you want, but this is my belief.

I was just poking fun at your formulation. Dull's a knife that's never keened, you know. I'm sure you're very proud of their achievements.

Kjeldoran · 16 May 2004, 11:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

They had a choice - breakaway, get with the rest of the alliances and attack you and win and get top in the rankings.

Ergo, 2nd are they and no joint win for them.

Had phraktos succeeded they would have finished 1st and thoroughly deserved it, as would any alliance that broke away from the FPM block.

they would have succeeded if they teamed up with all the other alliances. What makes them deserve a victory then when you needed 3-4 other alliances to help you? You're criticizing the fact that this isn't a solo victory (as it never was the past 5 rounds) yet those that pull from the block and form an even LARGER anti-block to beat the #1, they would be heroes of the round?

Gerbie · 16 May 2004, 12:06

Somehow beating a bigger alliance than your own is considered more heroic than when a big alliance defeats a small one.

lokken · 16 May 2004, 13:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

they would have succeeded if they teamed up with all the other alliances. What makes them deserve a victory then when you needed 3-4 other alliances to help you? You're criticizing the fact that this isn't a solo victory (as it never was the past 5 rounds) yet those that pull from the block and form an even LARGER anti-block to beat the #1, they would be heroes of the round?

I'm criticising as more could have been done to achieve victory because FPM were lazy.

And it's far more risky for that alliance to breakaway as everyone's as thick as thieves instead of happy families.

The effect of the larger anti-block is positive because it actually brings more players back into a round they otherwise wouldn't be involved with, so the game is not stagnated as such.

My point is where you can take risks and make positive moves you should - they deserve it because they wanted to win, and risked their more secure agreement to achieve it and took steps to do it.

Kjeldoran · 16 May 2004, 14:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerbie

Somehow beating a bigger alliance than your own is considered more heroic than when a big alliance defeats a small one.

true, yet you can't really blame us for that m8

Tomkat · 16 May 2004, 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned

It's spelled FAnG, with emphasis on the FAG.

Call me childish, but that's pretty lol.

Cayl · 16 May 2004, 18:29

If you read carefully Kj, we're not blaming FAnG, we're blaming MISTU.

lokken · 16 May 2004, 19:15

FAnG could never have broken away in fairness - they were way too unpopular to do that.

There was only one person more unpopular than them this round, that was Touriquet.

Forest · 16 May 2004, 19:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

What makes them deserve a victory then when you needed 3-4 other alliances to help you?

Irony

Kjeldoran · 17 May 2004, 00:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forest

Irony

I meant, what makes them deserve it MORE ...

Cayl · 17 May 2004, 20:54

Being able to beat you would be the standard definition of "deserving it more" I'd say. There SHOULD be a vicious cycle where alliances scramble for the top spot, making and breaking agreements right up til the end jockeying for position.

Again, not blaming the #1 alliance, because its the fault of the #2 and below alliances for not having the motivation to go for the top spot

Bode · 21 May 2004, 16:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned

It's spelled FAnG, with emphasis on the F, A and G.

Not to get too far off topic...but does anyone see what letters they are emphazing. Its seems to me they are putting the emPHasis on the wrong syLAbles.

Kjeldoran · 21 May 2004, 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bode

Not to get too far off topic...but does anyone see what letters they are emphazing. Its seems to me they are putting the emPHasis on the wrong syLAbles.

not really.

FAnG stands for: Furious Angels + next Generation --> so the logical way to write it would be FAnG.

Cayl · 21 May 2004, 20:15

Well that makes a lot more sense than what I'd been hearing....

Tomkat · 22 May 2004, 02:34

Why not Furious Angels Next Generation?

LEFF|pm · 22 May 2004, 11:40

cause FAnG was actually a merger. Furious Angels [FA] merged with next Generation [nG]

Apart from that FAnG stands for "F00kin` Assholes - notororious Ghey"

rshih · 22 May 2004, 18:39

O.... I always thought it was Fag wit an n in the middle =(

Kjeldoran · 22 May 2004, 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by rshih

O.... I always thought it was Fag wit an n in the middle =(

little hint, don't make jokes on AD when 5 pple in the same thread beat you to it

Banned · 22 May 2004, 18:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Why not Furious Angels Next Generation?

Because nG were actually called nG and not NG. Don't ask me to figure out how those wierd Germans came up with that.

Geezer77 · 25 May 2004, 22:41

Makes sense don't it. Anyway, stop moaning about FaNG and there name. The name doesn't really matter it's what they achieve that matters. Wasn't this a thread about Phraktos??

rshih · 26 May 2004, 00:18

Wtf is Phraktos?