Jenova: As its over, how many planets?

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Are you just being deliberately difficult?

It's been stated countless times that Ascendancy wasn't trying to cheat. There were 3 alliances. Please READ the description and stop being so obtuse.

1. Ascendancy: For people playing seriously, in the "Ascendancy" way.
2. Descendancy: For people like me, who weren't prepared to play seriously but wanted to hang out in #ascendancy and use Munin. I think the maximum count was 18 people or so. 18 INACTIVE people.
3. Transcendancy: A gimmick of Achilles which actually turned out to be a fantastic idea. He decided to scan for the universe and just took the "*scendancy" name for a joke. If he'd called it "Scanners United" or whatever, there'd have been no fuss about it. He did scans for everyone; it's just most of his buddies were in Ascendancy so we were using them while the rest of the universe took a while to click (even though he'd made posts in AR and AD about it).

So please. Stop it. It's irritating.

1. Irrelevant.
2. 18 support planets - smoke screened by claiming 'inactive'.
3. The fact the majority of scans were done for Ascendency seems to be lost on you.
4. Had you chosen to, the three chunks could do as little, or as much as it wanted.

In his thread, where he was closed I came and posted in support of him not being closed.
I personally don't mind what *scendency did, I mind top alliances joining at the hip seriously changing the whole outcome of entire rounds, while single planets get cited and booted. But, in both cases, to be consistent, if I say the rules say 70 man limit, no support planet actions, then fine. I'm forced to post like in this thread and say *scendency is wrong, but so is a whole lot of other stuff.

Cutting to the bone, what is the point of a 70 man limit and no support planet rule, if I can just go form one alliance, and set under its umbrella unlimited 70 man attack and def wings, and just have the outset of the game decided. Gee wizz, I guess thats a whole lot less damaging than some guy offering scans to every man and his doggy. (Sarcasm off.)

In the mean time, I can watch and ridicule as PaTEAM, and large parts of this community think throwing out single players operating miniscule events are more detrimental than what really happens. (And its only stupid because you have lame support and alliance limit rules anyway.)

[Tomkat]

What's the difference between Descendancy + Ascendancy, and creating a block between two alliances, AdmV0rl0n? Except, of course, that Descendancy only had about 18 planets and their average score was laughable so noone would bother to ever block with them.

[Mzyxptlk]

Haven't we already had this discussion? Not that I'd want to stand in the way of you wasting hours and hours of rehashing what's already been said, you understand, but it does seem somewhat redundant.



[edit]Thanks jester, I'll take the advice to heart (or at least try to!)

[Achilles]

The rule is shit for the simple reason that it was deemed fair for VGN/TGV/Jenova to form a block and play the round as 210+ vs The Universe. There is no ingame, mechanical distinction between what they did and what Asc/Desc/Trans did even if you choose to believe that it was done as a means to support one another, which is not true. In every respect VTJ were miles ahead of us in terms of organisation and support, as was the second place block headed up by Conspiracy.

I failed then, as I fail now, to understand what Remy found so offensive about what I did. By that I mean, even if someone truly believed all the bullshit about Ascendancy having some kind of cynical plan to distort the Universal rankings by blocking with it's own Wing, how is it any different to what the eventual winners did in blocking with other alliances?

The support planet rule is as stupid as it is unnecessary. The way the round was won proved that. There was never any point at which it was 70 vs 70 battle for the top spot. And if no-one wants to play the game as a true 70 vs 70 contest why all the effort to try and force them? To my mind it draws an apt comparison to the nanny statism that is becoming ever more prevalent in modern society.

edit - grammar and structure

[Jester]

Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n

2. 18 support planets - smoke screened by claiming 'inactive'.

Hi.

I was one of those support planets*. I spent the entire round initiating roids for the universe. That's was my inactivity. If you doubt this, ask the MHs, they were aware and monitoring my planet in case Ascendancy were using me as a farm**.

The fact of the matter is, no matter what we say or do, some ****wits around here have their mind made up about what fantastic assholes Ascendancy is filled with, and are convinced that everything we do can be pinned down to something undesirable. And we always rise to the bait, because we're bored and think we're smart enough to convince you otherwise. We won't. Ever.

But that's not going to stop some Ascendancy members from trying. Some will whine about Greenhills winning, many will congratulate him, but the hating ****wits saw that some Ascendancy members fit into their expected image of us, so ignored the rest of us that thought what Greenhills did was cool.

Some of them, like mz, bravely and stupidly stand up to the likes of you, trying to patiently explain that no, we didn't try to abuse the support planet rule, that we tried to play with more than 70 members while respecting the support planet rule. But he doesn't realize that you're not going to care. You have your mind made up and you're just posting here as an outlet for your frustration.

You, however, are pathetic. You're hung up on what you're convinced a shitty alliance that didn't even finish top10 did. Good for you. Why don't you **** off and start your own thread? Start a poll, 'how many people give a shit what Ascendancy did last round?' Or just go get a room with Phil^ and get it the **** over with.

*Admittedly, I ended the game in the Ascendancy tag. I think I contributed somewhere around 50k score to it.

**I'm told I had a few Ascendancy incoming.

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

What's the difference between Descendancy + Ascendancy, and creating a block between two alliances, AdmV0rl0n? Except, of course, that Descendancy only had about 18 planets and their average score was laughable so noone would bother to ever block with them.

There is no difference. The fact you cite a 'crappy block' does not change a damn thing.

[JonnyBGood]

Given that I was probably the most active senior ascendancy member last round they were all my support planets really. So ascendancy supported descendancy!

Transcendancy was really a wholly separate thing.

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by Achilles

The rule is shit for the simple reason that it was deemed fair for VGN/TGV/Jenova to form a block and play the round as 210+ vs The Universe. There is no ingame, mechanical distinction between what they did and what Asc/Desc/Trans did even if you choose to believe that it was done as a means to support one another, which is not true. In every respect VTJ were miles ahead of us in terms of organisation and support, as was the second place block headed up by Conspiracy.

I'm still trying to work out how you doing a few scans is 'bad', but the 210 member alliance is 'good'. To a very large degree, I believe *scendency to have been basically wrong, in what they did. And so it would seem did the multi-hunters. But if it is wrong, then the rest is wrong too.

Originally Posted by Achilles

I failed then, as I fail now, to understand what Remy found so offensive about what I did. By that I mean, even if someone truly believed all the bullshit about Ascendancy having some kind of cynical plan to distort the Universal rankings by blocking with it's own Wing, how is it any different to what the eventual winners did in blocking with other alliances?

Its not.

Originally Posted by Achilles

The support planet rule is as stupid as it is unnecessary. The way the round was won proved that. There was never any point at which it was 70 vs 70 battle for the top spot. And if no-one wants to play the game as a true 70 vs 70 contest why all the effort to try and force them? To my mind it draws an apt comparison to the nanny statism that is becoming ever more prevalent in modern society.

No, its not stupid. Every game has to have rules.
1/ PA should enforce rules by code, not arcane tools, and 'opinion'.
2/ Where code can't do it, you need working, clear, concise rules.
3/ Lets give PAteam some time and space to make the changes they know are needed in terms of support planets.
4/ Alliance blocking (and other alliance shit) is clearly in wholesale contravention of 'support planet rules' and 70 man limits, I don't believe PAteam is going to address that.

[AdmV0rl0n]

[quote=Jester]Hi.

Originally Posted by Jester

I was one of those support planets*. I spent the entire round initiating roids for the universe. That's was my inactivity. If you doubt this, ask the MHs, they were aware and monitoring my planet in case Ascendancy were using me as a farm**.

If you were initing roids, you were active. Just so you know, I am one of the few advocates who believes farming should be legal.

Originally Posted by Jester

The fact of the matter is, no matter what we say or do, some ****wits around here have their mind made up about what fantastic assholes Ascendancy is filled with, and are convinced that everything we do can be pinned down to something undesirable. And we always rise to the bait, because we're bored and think we're smart enough to convince you otherwise. We won't. Ever.

You're jumped on me here without understanding where I am coming from. The only reason I meantioned *scendency was that JBG decided to post a posting dragging people cos of rule breakage. Not cos you are more inherently evil than others.

Originally Posted by Jester

But that's not going to stop some Ascendancy members from trying. Some will whine about Greenhills winning, many will congratulate him, but the hating ****wits saw that some Ascendancy members fit into their expected image of us, so ignored the rest of us that thought what Greenhills did was cool.

I happen to like Greenhills winning.
1/ I want more ways to play, and win.
2/ I bitched when PA team changed the rules so 'it won't happen again'.
3/ PAteam keep trying to define 'how to win' and I hate it.

Originally Posted by Jester

Some of them, like mz, bravely and stupidly stand up to the likes of you, trying to patiently explain that no, we didn't try to abuse the support planet rule, that we tried to play with more than 70 members while respecting the support planet rule. But he doesn't realize that you're not going to care. You have your mind made up and you're just posting here as an outlet for your frustration.

No, I have some sympathy with *scendency, but you had/used more than 70, if I bitch about others doing it, that fact you did it in an irrelevant way is a side element to the discussion. If you can do it, others can do it, and maybe they will be better or worse than you, but ITS still beyond the 70 limit. Also, please note me bitching about other alliances and 140 members 'alliances, 210 member alliances, MY RANTING IS NOT AIMED AT *SCENDENCY, but yes, you got caught in my comment.

Originally Posted by Jester

You, however, are pathetic. You're hung up on what you're convinced a shitty alliance that didn't even finish top10 did. Good for you. Why don't you **** off and start your own thread? Start a poll, 'how many people give a shit what Ascendancy did last round?' Or just go get a room with Phil^ and get it the **** over with.

No, people who know me, know I don't like some of this stupid rule crap. I believe farms should be legalised in some way, I have a hatred of alliances, I spoke up in Achilles thread in support of NOT having him kicked out, I usually argue with Phil, and I enjoy being called pathetic. And I am bothered more by top ally blocking than your antics, and have said as much several times (but don't let that stop you ignoring me say it.)

Originally Posted by Jester

*Admittedly, I ended the game in the Ascendancy tag. I think I contributed somewhere around 50k score to it.

Originally Posted by Jester

**I'm told I had a few Ascendancy incoming.

For the record, ZikUnion enjoyed the battle with trancendency, we really wanted to beat you guys, we said we would, we did'nt and you never saw a bad word from ZU about any of it. Like you ZU played for fun, On EoRC I congratulated Trans before and after.

Or lemme put it another way, You were not one of the 210 member alliances that took out ZU in game.

[JonnyBGood]

Hypocrisy, not rule breaking. Like in real life I think drugs should be legalised but if someone took drugs while protesting they should be illegal I'm going to call him out on it.

[DJet]

Originally Posted by Kenny

So yeah - don't take everything you see on an intel coords list as Gospel.

I think it can be taken as gospel considering the list was from their own arbiter and JBG's screenshots were from their own website.


As for getting intel from people attacking together, who still does that? surely its better to establish intel from defence fleets out of gal/cluster?

[Travler]

I thought that Jenova had 103 planets at one point.

But my source was http://www.jenova-hq.org/ so I could be wrong.

[[DDK]gm]

105 before tick start, last time we counted it was 84 I think but that was a few weeks from the end.

[robban1]

Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n

bla bla bla

you got too much sparetime hun, greenhills if he didnt do anything wrong why did they change the trading with the fund crap?







oh ascendancy rules