|
|
21 Feb 2014, 21:06
|
#151
|
Knightly Protector
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Avalon
Posts: 590
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
You could say that Vikings and Spore is in bed every round aswell.
|
WTF?!?!?!?!?!
Are you in the same universe as the rest of us? Like seriously can I borrow your brain/eye-sight coz I usually have to do a lot of drinking to be able to see facts and twist them into what I want them to say?
Havent been on AD for a while but this was pointed to me. Came so close to not posting on the forums but your statement above literally screamed WTF
__________________
TGV Ex-HC
-No I am not suffering from insanity. I am enjoying every minute of it.
Est Sularus oth Mithas
My Honour is My Life, My Life is My Honour
|
|
|
21 Feb 2014, 22:36
|
#152
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 98
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
You could say that Vikings and Spore is in bed every round aswell.
|
Vikings and Spore have been hitting each other...
__________________
Apprime
|
|
|
21 Feb 2014, 22:47
|
#153
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott
Vikings and Spore have been hitting each other...
|
Classic misdirection strategy. We see right through your deceit, evildoers!
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
21 Feb 2014, 23:06
|
#154
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott
Vikings and Spore have been hitting each other...
|
So has ND and Spore, and CT and Spore.
Vikings and Spore were NAPed 90% of last round, and perhaps we wernt as close this round as earlier, but im pretty sure Vikings couldnt have had much incs from Spore all this round.
Maybe RexDrax got a stat on this?
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
22 Feb 2014, 13:36
|
#155
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Ok so im slightly lost with what is going on.
From these forums and the Vikings webby i can see that Spore had had an easy round up until 7 days ago. They were miles ahead and then everyone gangbanged them (like is the PA way). The when CT and Faceless are within sight of Spore everyone has swapped sides and Spore start gaining again??!!
Wtf is happening with politics? Why can no one in this game ever finish the job and why have Faceless been left alone for over 1000 ticks? Are you all waiting for easy XP lands like last time they played?
Has the universal love of Bitcher made you all come back to team Spore?
|
|
|
22 Feb 2014, 14:25
|
#156
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,143
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba
Ok so im slightly lost with what is going on.
From these forums and the Vikings webby i can see that Spore had had an easy round up until 7 days ago. They were miles ahead and then everyone gangbanged them (like is the PA way). The when CT and Faceless are within sight of Spore everyone has swapped sides and Spore start gaining again??!!
Wtf is happening with politics? Why can no one in this game ever finish the job and why have Faceless been left alone for over 1000 ticks? Are you all waiting for easy XP lands like last time they played?
Has the universal love of Bitcher made you all come back to team Spore?
|
As supreme leader of spore I can confirm that I have gathered adequate support and are currently leading my troops to victory.
|
|
|
22 Feb 2014, 15:44
|
#157
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
So has ND and Spore, and CT and Spore.
Vikings and Spore were NAPed 90% of last round, and perhaps we wernt as close this round as earlier, but im pretty sure Vikings couldnt have had much incs from Spore all this round.
Maybe RexDrax got a stat on this?
|
<@[Vikings]> [Alliances: 1. NewDawn (396) 2. Apprime (387) 3. Faceless (369) 4. Conspiracy (324) 5. Spore (268) 6. HEROES (118) 7. ROCK (95) 8. HowlingRain (32) 9. Ultores (19) 10. FAnG (10)]
|
|
|
22 Feb 2014, 16:48
|
#158
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
I just want to comment on this feud between Vikings and Faceless.
It has come to my attention that Faceless have become extremely cocky, especially with a few of their fleet names directed at us, "You're Shit Without Us" & "We Made You Good". I just want to clarify a few things.
Although Faceless did prevail against Vikings, they used the power of politics and participated in on a 5-alliance gangbang on us. Exclaiming that, "You're Shit Without Faceless" is pretty funny.
We are still perceived as an efficient alliance in terms of defence, our only flaw, and probably always will be, is politics.
We stopped defending completely after the second night of concentrated incoming, because not only were we receiving 250-300 lines of incoming from 5 different alliances per night, but as a 40 man tag you just cannot fend off a block, and with these broken stats it became increasingly difficult to defend efficiently as we had to heavily rely upon pre-launch defence. We just didn't see the point in putting in the effort in JGPing every member every tick and subsequently spamming them to perform incoming scans.
And whilst we're on the subject of cockyness, it took 5 alliances to roid Vikings, yet it only took 2 alliances for Faceless to leak. Yeah, you're pretty pro.
I want to congratulate Faceless on their political maneuver, but do not for a second think that "you made us" because to be quite frank, that is utter bullshit.
Last edited by Clouds; 22 Feb 2014 at 17:23.
|
|
|
22 Feb 2014, 20:22
|
#159
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
I just want to comment on this feud between Vikings and Faceless.
It has come to my attention that Faceless have become extremely cocky, especially with a few of their fleet names directed at us, "You're Shit Without Us" & "We Made You Good". I just want to clarify a few things.
Although Faceless did prevail against Vikings, they used the power of politics and participated in on a 5-alliance gangbang on us. Exclaiming that, "You're Shit Without Faceless" is pretty funny.
We are still perceived as an efficient alliance in terms of defence, our only flaw, and probably always will be, is politics.
We stopped defending completely after the second night of concentrated incoming, because not only were we receiving 250-300 lines of incoming from 5 different alliances per night, but as a 40 man tag you just cannot fend off a block, and with these broken stats it became increasingly difficult to defend efficiently as we had to heavily rely upon pre-launch defence. We just didn't see the point in putting in the effort in JGPing every member every tick and subsequently spamming them to perform incoming scans.
And whilst we're on the subject of cockyness, it took 5 alliances to roid Vikings, yet it only took 2 alliances for Faceless to leak. Yeah, you're pretty pro.
I want to congratulate Faceless on their political maneuver, but do not for a second think that "you made us" because to be quite frank, that is utter bullshit.
|
This could have been a good post, maybe even pushed other alliances to join the 'lets slap Faceless' cause but then it got all personal...
In other posts you seem very disheartened Clouds and i am hoping that this could be the round when you leave Vikings and strike out on your own with your own alliance. You are a good HC and you have done tons for VIkings and all its members in the rounds you have HCed there and frankly been let down by a poor command team on every occasion. I know i am not welcome to play in an alliance with RexDrax at the helm but i still consider those people you have been HCing my PA family and i think they are deserving of better than they had in previous rounds, maybe you should give it to them.
|
|
|
22 Feb 2014, 22:42
|
#160
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
I want to congratulate Faceless on their political maneuver, but do not for a second think that "you made us" because to be quite frank, that is utter bullshit.
|
About as much bullshit as the "FACELESS = BACKSTABBERS" fleetnames, when it was you that initially declared war (or said you'd hit us with Ultores).
Also, we had 3 alliances hitting us, and if you think Faceless is 'leaking' when you crash 2.5mil (Vikings) and 6mil (Apprime) to take some roids, then sure. Other than one Viking land, which noone DC'd, and one Apprime wave which we should have pl'd Clippers to, everything was covered.
|
|
|
22 Feb 2014, 22:53
|
#161
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrikc
About as much bullshit as the "FACELESS = BACKSTABBERS" fleetnames, when it was you that initially declared war (or said you'd hit us with Ultores).
Also, we had 3 alliances hitting us, and if you think Faceless is 'leaking' when you crash 2.5mil (Vikings) and 6mil (Apprime) to take some roids, then sure. Other than one Viking land, which noone DC'd, and one Apprime wave which we should have pl'd Clippers to, everything was covered.
|
Did you backstab? Cos then they would be justified. Also it would be far easier to DC against 3 half active alliances, one of which has a weak race strat than it was for Vikings to defend against 5 alliances who at tick 700 were in their prime activity area of the round.
You cannot compare the two and i cannot see Faceless winning the round. I think CT might do it, i actually hope they do
*EDIT* Also i cant find the planets that had 5200 roids this morning because according to you only 2 waves landing on you and you lost 2700 roids. Please explain.
|
|
|
22 Feb 2014, 23:36
|
#162
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
I don't know how badly Vikings had it and wouldn't claim that we handle incomings as well as they did (I doubt it), I'm just pointing out that saying we're leaking roids when you crash for them isn't exactly a fair argument. And only two uncovered waves doesn't mean only two waves landed!
As for 'backstabbing': from my point of view, we had a fort avoidance and we galraided with a Vikings in it. We killed 1m value for no losses because of an uncovered call that they were trying to recall defense from last tick, after which they threatened/declared war/dropped nap (don't know how this went down), and later retracted their statement. We responded accordingly.
|
|
|
22 Feb 2014, 23:53
|
#163
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrikc
As for 'backstabbing': from my point of view, we had a fort avoidance and we galraided with a Vikings in it. We killed 1m value for no losses because of an uncovered call that they were trying to recall defense from last tick, after which they threatened/declared war/dropped nap (don't know how this went down), and later retracted their statement. We responded accordingly.
|
I would obtain the facts before posting before you make yourself look stupid.
Faceless made a move on Vikings first when they coordinated with the Spore block. We only "threatened" after you clearly coordinated against us.
I have had a Faceless HC, Officer and even a Spore HC, who have confirmed that you pulled this stunt for political gain, which in hindsight was a good move, but you have also jeopardised any future cooperation as a consequence.
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 00:04
|
#164
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Facts in PA? There are only logs, and people providing logs, and the logs I saw supported my point of view.
Did we benefit from attacking Vikings? Only an idiot would deny this. We only 'stabbed you in the back' because you turned away from our nap offer claiming you'd be back with friends.
I already regret to joining the he-said-she-said forums.
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 00:10
|
#165
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 98
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Every alliance has had some sort of block hit them this round, for one reason or another. Only alliance that seems to be moaning about this is Vikings?
__________________
Apprime
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 00:13
|
#166
|
Finally retired
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 788
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrikc
I don't know how badly Vikings had it and wouldn't claim that we handle incomings as well as they did (I doubt it), I'm just pointing out that saying we're leaking roids when you crash for them isn't exactly a fair argument. And only two uncovered waves doesn't mean only two waves landed!
As for 'backstabbing': from my point of view, we had a fort avoidance and we galraided with a Vikings in it. We killed 1m value for no losses because of an uncovered call that they were trying to recall defense from last tick, after which they threatened/declared war/dropped nap (don't know how this went down), and later retracted their statement. We responded accordingly.
|
The threatening happened before you landed, it wasn't really an uncovered call, it was just not a loss we felt we could take at that time. We originally had a fort avoid until thursday and friday there was a talk that we thought lead to the extension of the fort avoid until at least monday when a longer and better chat was planned. Yet on sunday when we encountered massive prelaunches we also noticed prelaunches on one of our forts from faceless. Considering we are quite certain the fort avoid was still in effect we feel betrayed by faceless. Faceless however feels that the fort avoid was never confirmed (as Santa 'conveniently?' had to go afk at that time).
As for the threatening, it wasn't so much a threat. It was a warning to one of your highranked members that we were willing to land the def and let it end badly for all of us. We hoped this would discourage said member from landing which it didn't so we decided to recall to prevent our valueloss. Unfortunately we were unable to contact 2 members causing us to loose 1m value indeed. That, however, was on us, not on faceless.
The reason there had to be talks between faceless and vikings in the first place was because faceless didn't feel happy about the fort avoid anymore. Grounds for this uncomfort came from vikings landing 5 waves on a spore that was outside of a spore fort, and thus outside of the agreement vikings and spore had at that time. Faceless was sure this would also happen to some of their members outside of their forts.
Hitting faceless was never the intention of any vikings HC. We considered them to be a friendly alliance, and a good few of them friends. We repeatedly shown interest in building a solid bond between faceless and vikings, being the 2 smaller tags, to prevent a single large tag from using either vikings or faceless for an XP jump. This also lead to a request to offer us a nap ingame, which faceless immediately did. Unfortunately it wasn't communicated well enough that we wouldnt be accepting said nap until we finished off some other political dealings. Said ingame offer was dropped by faceless, pretty much the minute you had secured an ingame deal with Spore.
__________________
don't be an arse, join [TiT]
In the absence of the good old TiT alliance, look me up in VGN
Last edited by Influence; 23 Feb 2014 at 00:21.
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 00:48
|
#167
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Agreed with what you said Influence, I think it simply comes down to interpretation and reading in between the lines.
Perhaps we drew wrong conclusions from Clouds's pm to me and later coolkat about that attack, perhaps Santa took the opportunity a little greedily. All I can say is that noone in Faceless wanted to hit Vikings, and I guess after having avoided incs for so long we were expecting to get our asses handed to us soon and I wouldn't have put it past Vikings (nor would I've blamed them) to join the party. When Vikings didn't take the NAP initially and there were signs of hostility, a NAP with Spore seemed like the best course of action.
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 03:22
|
#168
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Emerald Dream
Posts: 116
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Short summary of the round seen through the eyes of an ultores peon not involved in any kind of politics:
TICKS
1-250 - everyone is happy gal raiding
250 - Ultores is already rank 1 size and avg size going for the win
280-350 - CT + ND block vs Ultores but Ultores is not losing but gaining a bit each day
350-650 - Spore sees an oppotunity and join CT+ND and Ultores is losing roids now.
650 - Ultores is now 7th in size and 8th avg size so block stops.
650-750 - Ultores brings in friends and kills off ND gaining 20k roids in 5 days.
750-850 - CT+ND+Spore block hits Ultores again.
850 - Ultores is now rank 5 size and score with 30+ mil behind rank 1 and can no longer win the round so block stops.
850-1000 - Ultores brings in friends and hit Spore which is losing roids.
1000 - With a week left, Spore is 1st but 30k roids behind 2nd and 3rd which are gaining fast and will both outscore Spore.
1000 - ??? Ultores is hitting CT trying to prevent any ally from the ND/CT/Spore block from winning. CT is hitting Ultores
It was supposed to be short but a lot has happened this round so had to cover everything.
The only sad thing about this round end is that top 3 allies are allied at this moment. Lets see which ally is desperate enough to backstab their friends and go for the win!
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 05:27
|
#169
|
old spy
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: norway,oslo
Posts: 122
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeJay
Short summary of the round seen through the eyes of an ultores peon not involved in any kind of politics:
TICKS
1-250 - everyone is happy gal raiding
250 - Ultores is already rank 1 size and avg size going for the win
280-350 - CT + ND block vs Ultores but Ultores is not losing but gaining a bit each day
350-650 - Spore sees an oppotunity and join CT+ND and Ultores is losing roids now.
650 - Ultores is now 7th in size and 8th avg size so block stops.
650-750 - Ultores brings in friends and kills off ND gaining 20k roids in 5 days.
750-850 - CT+ND+Spore block hits Ultores again.
850 - Ultores is now rank 5 size and score with 30+ mil behind rank 1 and can no longer win the round so block stops.
850-1000 - Ultores brings in friends and hit Spore which is losing roids.
1000 - With a week left, Spore is 1st but 30k roids behind 2nd and 3rd which are gaining fast and will both outscore Spore.
1000 - ??? Ultores is hitting CT trying to prevent any ally from the ND/CT/Spore block from winning. CT is hitting Ultores
It was supposed to be short but a lot has happened this round so had to cover everything.
The only sad thing about this round end is that top 3 allies are allied at this moment. Lets see which ally is desperate enough to backstab their friends and go for the win!
|
i like to give a reply to this, but it would maybe be better to start a END of round 55 sumup insted ? its like 5 days left ;-)
__________________
Aif
[1up]
played Round 1-14
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 12:20
|
#170
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott
Every alliance has had some sort of block hit them this round, for one reason or another. Only alliance that seems to be moaning about this is Vikings?
|
I do not see any Vikings representative moaning, and if you are referring to my post that I made earlier, I was merely summarising the round through the eyes of a Vikings HC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrikc
Perhaps we drew wrong conclusions from Clouds's pm to me and later coolkat about that attack
|
What I suggested to you, and later CoolKat, was that we were taking a calculated risk to land defence, fundamentally due to CoolKat's planet & galaxy rank. We didn't think he would risk 300k value. It seems however, you took this as a hostile move on Faceless, even though I did not mention Faceless in my communications with you & CoolKat.
I think you saw an opportunity to play for #1, and you took it.
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 12:36
|
#171
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Everyone is playing for #1 while firmly denying they are playing for #1.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 12:43
|
#172
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Or perhaps alliances weren't playing for #1 but seeing as they're in a strong position to do so, now they think they will
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 12:53
|
#173
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper
Or perhaps alliances weren't playing for #1 but seeing as they're in a strong position to do so, now they think they will
|
The patented Ultores late surge has begun??
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 12:59
|
#174
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 898
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
no, they are crashing into ct with rock to kill our score
__________________
R4-5 DDK
R6 Vanx
R7-R10 FAnG
R10 Eclipse
R10.5-R13 FAnG
R20-23 CT
R23 (CT BG) ToF
R24-R82... CT
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 13:44
|
#175
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 145
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
A sad day for PA when the top 3 allies are all friendly even in the last week of the round.
Deejay summed it all up very well.
I know politics are the biggest part to winning, but these specific politics of top allies grouping together to bash the rest is kind of retarded IMO, the only reason it is now close is because the 'anti-block' has been doing the work to make it interesting for the last week, whereas the competitors for #1 are simply hoping that it's their 'friends' that are hit by the anti-block rather than themselves.
Saying this though, i do understand that Faceless were not allied to CT/Spore/ND, but they did have round long NAPs in place if i'm not mistaken? That alone is annoying tactics IMO, but Spore/CT/ND were the worse, so hopefully we can see Faceless take the win at the end, lesser of 3 evils as it were
__________________
The only thing neccesary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing
Ultores peon
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 14:09
|
#176
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
I bet Santa had the major hole in these events. Although most face members seemed to have a good relationship while playing in Vikings, that one seemed to have issues from start choosing to play separately from his bg in r53.
__________________
mxy
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 17:24
|
#177
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
It seems however, you took this as a hostile move on Faceless, even though I did not mention Faceless in my communications with you & CoolKat.
|
As I said, we read between the lines and were possibly wrong. You said you were willing to sacrifice Vikings value (it was something like 1.3mil vs 800k) to kill 5:2's value, a Faceless fortress. It showed to us you were willing to use Vikings to get galwin (this was before 2:4 fell behind), and after we landed you said you didn't need to talk to Santa anymore about our agreement's extension, from which we we concluded that you were going to war. Santa acted quickly and didn't give you a chance to clear things up, and now here we are.
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 18:13
|
#178
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrikc
As I said, we read between the lines and were possibly wrong. You said you were willing to sacrifice Vikings value (it was something like 1.3mil vs 800k) to kill 5:2's value, a Faceless fortress. It showed to us you were willing to use Vikings to get galwin (this was before 2:4 fell behind), and after we landed you said you didn't need to talk to Santa anymore about our agreement's extension, from which we we concluded that you were going to war. Santa acted quickly and didn't give you a chance to clear things up, and now here we are.
|
I think it's open to interpretation. My warning that we were prepared to sacrifice value was a calculated risk that, as I have explained multiple times, we didn't think CoolKat would crash that amount of value due to planet/galaxy ranks, and I do not believe I was perceived as in a threatening mannor.
And as explained individually to various Faceless HCs / Officers, when I said I did not need to talk to Santa, I did not state that it pertained to any sort of agreements. I believe that Coolkat/Santa took this way out of proportion and overreacted without even communicating with us beforehand.
I still think Faceless saw an opportunity to play for #1, and took it.
Last edited by Clouds; 23 Feb 2014 at 18:37.
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 18:29
|
#179
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 957
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
I agree, though from my point of view we would not have hit Vikings if not for those events. Nothing we can do about it now except put trashtalk in our fleetnames eh? Think I'll give multihunters a visit, calling Santacruz Faceless's Forest is quite offensive!
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 19:07
|
#180
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrikc
I agree, though from my point of view we would not have hit Vikings if not for those events. Nothing we can do about it now except put trashtalk in our fleetnames eh? Think I'll give multihunters a visit, calling Santacruz Faceless's Forest is quite offensive!
|
To Forest, no one wants to be labelled a Canadian....
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 20:41
|
#181
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Emerald Dream
Posts: 116
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba
To Forest, no one wants to be labelled a Canadian....
|
You are very wrong here.
EVERYONE wants to be from the same country as bread|
|
|
|
23 Feb 2014, 23:58
|
#182
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight
A sad day for PA when the top 3 allies are all friendly even in the last week of the round.
Deejay summed it all up very well.
I know politics are the biggest part to winning, but these specific politics of top allies grouping together to bash the rest is kind of retarded IMO, the only reason it is now close is because the 'anti-block' has been doing the work to make it interesting for the last week, whereas the competitors for #1 are simply hoping that it's their 'friends' that are hit by the anti-block rather than themselves.
Saying this though, i do understand that Faceless were not allied to CT/Spore/ND, but they did have round long NAPs in place if i'm not mistaken? That alone is annoying tactics IMO, but Spore/CT/ND were the worse, so hopefully we can see Faceless take the win at the end, lesser of 3 evils as it were
|
Deejay's account is accurate but this analysis isn't right in my opinion. The strategies involved aren't about bashing but more necessity, taking advantage of shared interests and playing within your own limitations. Obviously ultores will feel hard done by from that, but no hc should ever pass up an opportunity to contain the best alliance in the game and prevent a head to head war in the long run that you lose. What happened at pt 500 was completely fair game, as no one should ever expect a free pass to #1. And much the same happened with vikings when they made moves to try and win with a broad coalition of their own. If they have a gripe, its simply that they got outgunned by an alliance using the same tactic. The fact they have 45 planets is besides the point.
The fallout has been a situation where alliances are destroying themselves to end the prospects of every alliance that has made genuine plays for #1. This is effectively M.A.D. in planetarion form.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
24 Feb 2014, 00:27
|
#183
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 145
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
Deejay's account is accurate but this analysis isn't right in my opinion. The strategies involved aren't about bashing but more necessity, taking advantage of shared interests and playing within your own limitations. Obviously ultores will feel hard done by from that, but no hc should ever pass up an opportunity to contain the best alliance in the game and prevent a head to head war in the long run that you lose.
|
I do agrre with you definitely, it's understandable to hit the 'best' ally, i just feel, as u say "hard done by" and think it's a little over the top, especially when to a degree it is still being continued in the final week, when Ult have no chance of top spots for anything, it is just that we are the highest ranked ally that they are not allied/NAP'd with. Oh well though, such is PA and it won't change any time soon .
__________________
The only thing neccesary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing
Ultores peon
|
|
|
24 Feb 2014, 12:16
|
#184
|
Valle is my hero
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
How long have Spore been napped to CT and ND out of interest.
I have seen quite a few people whine on about the top alliances being napped, which is kind of hilarious when the people whining are the ones who used to do it and the ones doing it used to whine
Im just interested though to see how long Spore has had these agreements in place because surely as the top alliance the more naps they have the better. Its up to 2nd place to lead the fight against 1st place so im not sure why there has been some Spore hate on here.
|
|
|
24 Feb 2014, 13:46
|
#185
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
there were pre round arrangements with nd ct n spore
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
24 Feb 2014, 13:49
|
#186
|
Inquisitor
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 2,207
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper
there were pre round arrangements with nd ct n spore
|
This is totally incorrect.
I will happily discuss Spore politics for this round in 5 days time.
__________________
----------
That uniform you're wearing
So hot I cant stop staring.
Zhil
[Spore] Executive
[1up]
[Fury]
Inquisitorial Lord Protector of His Emperor's Glorius Empire
[20:19:04] <mazzelaar> I have to say a big up to Zhil - without those 8 def calls you covered we would've been screwed. | r12 End Ceremony
|
|
|
24 Feb 2014, 14:18
|
#187
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,038
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
ok so we're just clairvoyant that we knew that ct nd and spore were going to block vs ultores as soon as they could?
__________________
Did some stuff, played here n there done just about all there is to do
|
|
|
24 Feb 2014, 14:29
|
#188
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper
ok so we're just clairvoyant that we knew that ct nd and spore were going to block vs ultores as soon as they could?
|
Maybe he is trying to say Spore had no nap or avoidance agreements with ND or CT and if they werent using all their atk fleets to hit Ultores they could hit each other freely.
__________________
mxy
|
|
|
24 Feb 2014, 14:30
|
#189
|
Inquisitor
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 2,207
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_Esper
ok so we're just clairvoyant that we knew that ct nd and spore were going to block vs ultores as soon as they could?
|
As I said, I will delve deeper into Spore specific politics in five days time. Yet since I am Spore Executive and responsible for the majority of all its deals this round, I think I am more suited to saying what I may or may not have done.
Your view is narrow-minded and not taking in aspects of what has happened this round.
__________________
----------
That uniform you're wearing
So hot I cant stop staring.
Zhil
[Spore] Executive
[1up]
[Fury]
Inquisitorial Lord Protector of His Emperor's Glorius Empire
[20:19:04] <mazzelaar> I have to say a big up to Zhil - without those 8 def calls you covered we would've been screwed. | r12 End Ceremony
|
|
|
24 Feb 2014, 14:32
|
#190
|
Inquisitor
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 2,207
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortran
Maybe he is trying to say Spore had no nap or avoidance agreements with ND or CT and if they werent using all their atk fleets to hit Ultores they could hit each other freely.
|
I'm saying that Spore had no pre-round agreements with CT or ND.
__________________
----------
That uniform you're wearing
So hot I cant stop staring.
Zhil
[Spore] Executive
[1up]
[Fury]
Inquisitorial Lord Protector of His Emperor's Glorius Empire
[20:19:04] <mazzelaar> I have to say a big up to Zhil - without those 8 def calls you covered we would've been screwed. | r12 End Ceremony
|
|
|
24 Feb 2014, 18:37
|
#191
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zh|l
I am more suited to saying what I may or may not have done.
|
Preposterous!
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
25 Feb 2014, 22:10
|
#192
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
I hear on the grapevine that Faceless are actively looking for untagged planets. Are they really this pathetic?
|
|
|
25 Feb 2014, 23:25
|
#193
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 25
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Funny thing is my grapevine is saying that tgv have given up and wanted to kingmake ct as their only means to "beat" us
Gg go crash your fleets, win or no win faceless has played an outstanding round and im proud of all my members...except magnus
|
|
|
25 Feb 2014, 23:45
|
#194
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
If Faceless wins, I will do the honourable thing and congratulate you, but if you win by adding extra untagged planets, then don't expect people to have any respect for your alliance.
|
|
|
25 Feb 2014, 23:46
|
#195
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 50
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Coolkat you are a snake in the grass m8. I lost so much respect for Faceless this round. I really liked all of them before, ck, phant, willy, magnus etc. It's even sadder that they can't even own up to the fact that they backstabbed us, it boggles my mind. They keep just having to justify their actions based off of how they interpreted what should have been NON-ambiguous situations to safe face. But we all know they are faceLESS...
|
|
|
26 Feb 2014, 00:05
|
#196
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 25
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Ive never neen called a snake in the grass b4
I always thought people thought me to be more of a cuddly panda, and clouds u can spam this board all u want w hear says and bs in hopes to control politics.
And for the record I have not lost respect for any of tgvs members...
|
|
|
26 Feb 2014, 00:06
|
#197
|
Knight of Ni!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oslo Norway
Posts: 298
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Vikings shouldnt talk... Remember how you royally buttfked fang 2 rounds ago...? Way worse than faceless Did to you this round. What goes around comes around in planetarion aswell. I Still like you guys though!
|
|
|
26 Feb 2014, 00:09
|
#198
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddah
Vikings shouldnt talk... Remember how you royally buttfked fang 2 rounds ago...? Way worse than faceless Did to you this round. What goes around comes around in planetarion aswell. I Still like you guys though!
|
The difference is, Vikings and Faceless shared 2 rounds of hell together, and we considered them good friends. Vikings/FAnG however had no relation what-so-ever.
|
|
|
26 Feb 2014, 00:20
|
#199
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 35
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouds
The difference is, Vikings and Faceless shared 2 rounds of hell together, and we considered them good friends. Vikings/FAnG however had no relation what-so-ever.
|
You do realize that most of the active Fang members are in Faceless right? so that 2 rounds relationship doesn't exist to us
|
|
|
26 Feb 2014, 00:25
|
#200
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
|
Re: r 5 5 mid round sumup
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackMagic
You do realize that most of the active Fang members are in Faceless right? so that 2 rounds relationship doesn't exist to us
|
You do realise that I'm referring to the Faceless core, don't you.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:03.
| |