Asc/THINLYVEILEDTHREAT

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by eksero

That issue was about someone in omen soloing, and you saying you only hit the targets that we AGREED by everyone in the chan. What difference does those other lines make?

My guess is, and I m 99.999% certain about this, is that its someone who had already left Omen, since there is no further talk about it there.

read through some more, alot of comedy gold there!

01[20:21] <@Wishmaster> also, last night ND
01[20:22] <@Wishmaster> why didnt u hit elviz / isil in the gal raid?
[20:22] <@damo8> They where both up.
01[20:22] <@Wishmaster> hehe
[20:22] <@Vladzzz> ppl didn't wanna take em
[20:22] <@damo8> But Wishmaster
[20:22] <@damo8> If elviz gets close to winning.
[20:22] <@damo8> We'll 24 hour inc him
[20:22] <@Vladzzz> we'll step in
[20:23] <@Amon> Think of us like Batman.

Thats what I meant about ND not really being part of anything at that stage.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

yes, when omen was "dead" then there were no real opposition for you. Asc was a machine with like 110-120? members, and all knew ( cept nd / ct ) that they would walk over them and win the round.

110. It's pretty obvious it wasn't irrelevant though. We lost like 15-20% of our roids over those 4 days. If that had continued we wouldn't have won.

That lasted for exactly how long, till CT first dropped out, then napped asc to start hitting omen?

A week? Checking my logs first night of our co-operation with CT was February 8th (so landing the next day obviously). It happened far from every night though. I mean CT's co-operation with us was so minimal after a while then when we agreed our avoidance (omen and asc that is) I didn't even have to tell ct anything about why we were no longer hitting omen.

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

My guess is, and I m 99.999% certain about this, is that its someone who had already left Omen, since there is no further talk about it there.

read through some more, alot of comedy gold there!

01[20:21] <@Wishmaster> also, last night ND
01[20:22] <@Wishmaster> why didnt u hit elviz / isil in the gal raid?
[20:22] <@damo8> They where both up.
01[20:22] <@Wishmaster> hehe
[20:22] <@Vladzzz> ppl didn't wanna take em
[20:22] <@damo8> But Wishmaster
[20:22] <@damo8> If elviz gets close to winning.
[20:22] <@damo8> We'll 24 hour inc him
[20:22] <@Vladzzz> we'll step in
[20:23] <@Amon> Think of us like Batman.

Thats what I meant about ND not really being part of anything at that stage.

Yeah but that's after day 4, where ND hit 6.9 the previous night. At that stage yes ND had pretty much pulled out, which is what I've been saying all along.

[HaNzI]

We all know it was my pulsars who won asc the round, everything else is irrelevant! Wish is by the way right on the thing you argue about.

[JonnyBGood]

Hanzi, what on earth are you doing in a thread where you can't talk about apprime!

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

A week? Checking my logs first night of our co-operation with CT was February 8th (so landing the next day obviously). It happened far from every night though. I mean CT's co-operation with us was so minimal after a while then when we agreed our avoidance (omen and asc that is) I didn't even have to tell ct anything about why we were no longer hitting omen.



Yeah but that's after day 4, where ND hit 6.9 the previous night. At that stage yes ND had pretty much pulled out, which is what I've been saying all along.

CT stopped working with us / hitting asc gals long before they napped you guys. I pretty much gave up trying to get in contact with them, and even if I did it ended up with them not hitting asc anymore cause asc were already dead. lol. or they took a gal and sent some shit there. It was mainly Omen, and then later on we had help from VGN.

Thats the only log I bothered to look up regarding NDs heroic war effort. It started before day 4. or day 3 or day 2.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

Thats the only log I bothered to look up regarding NDs heroic war effort. It started before day 4. or day 3 or day 2.

Uh, that log is surely from after day 4? Given that it references them hitting 6.9 the previous night which was what happened on day 4?

[Wishmaster]

yes it is. What I said is, there are surely alot of other logs I could have posted regarding the other 2/3 nights aswell. Cause ND didnt really participate at this stage. Only when asc overtook them later did they try to hit asc full force.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

yes it is. What I said is, there are surely alot of other logs I could have posted regarding the other 2/3 nights aswell. Cause ND didnt really participate at this stage. Only when asc overtook them later did they try to hit asc full force.

I'm pretty sure I already posted something about this. But once more it's not our fault if the alliances involved didn't go at us as hard at us as they possibly could. One really has to wonder what would be needed for you to accept this was a 4 alliance block for 3 nights. Every single planet in each of the participating alliances launching at least 2 fleets at an ascendancy planet perhaps?

[HaNzI]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Hanzi, what on earth are you doing in a thread where you can't talk about apprime!

Just because a few Asc posters claim to be correct on a matter, does not mean they are right. Wish makes a point in telling people who didnt even play, to shut up.

Only a few people can give a detailed description of specific periods of a round, and that is the ones who spent a lot of time in organizing stuff on a daily basis. If someone wants to know what the block was doing in round30 between tick 500 and 1100, Wishmaster is the only person i would consider asking.

So, the reason i post in this thread is to back up wishmaster, and prevent You, lokken and mz from claiming the right to dictate what really happened in the period you argue about. Just because you have the number of posters on your side, does not mean you are right.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by HaNzI

Just because a few Asc posters claim to be correct on a matter, does not mean they are right. Wish makes a point in telling people who didnt even play, to shut up.

Only a few people can give a detailed description of specific periods of a round, and that is the ones who spent a lot of time in organizing stuff on a daily basis. If someone wants to know what the block was doing in round30 between tick 500 and 1100, Wishmaster is the only person i would consider asking.

So, the reason i post in this thread is to back up wishmaster, and prevent You, lokken and mz from claiming the right to dictate what really happened in the period you argue about. Just because you have the number of posters on your side, does not mean you are right.

I've got the ****ing facts on my side you delusional imbecile. I've posted multiple logs. eksero, who was in the shared targeting channel (and has nothing to do with ascendancy at this stage), has also posted the logs from that room. I've got the entire omen HC channel log up until inforza left omen from that round, which backs me up. Wishmaster has even had to change his position multiple times during this thread, going from pretending not to be aware of the existence of a midround block to saying that it only lasted one night to saying that it only lasted two nights and one omen didn't participate in to arguing that because omen were already beaten and nd/ct weren't that good it somehow doesn't count.

At this stage I reckon you're on some personal quest to post the most factually inaccurate rubbish you can make up about PA though. I'm still laughing at your "history" of r33. Take your own advice and if you don't have a clue, don't ****ing post.



Edit: I'm going to pre-empt whatever you're going to post in response to this by predicting it'll be insane, bear little or no relation to reality and merely be symptomatic of your hilarious inferiority complex vis-a-vis Ascendancy.

[HaNzI]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I've got the ****ing facts on my side you delusional imbecile. I've posted multiple logs. eksero, who was in the shared targeting channel (and has nothing to do with ascendancy at this stage), has also posted the logs from that room. I've got the entire omen HC channel log up until inforza left omen from that round, which backs me up. Wishmaster has even had to change his position multiple times during this thread, going from pretending not to be aware of the existence of a midround block to saying that it only lasted one night to saying that it only lasted two nights and one omen didn't participate in to arguing that because omen were already beaten and nd/ct weren't that good it somehow doesn't count.

At this stage I reckon you're on some personal quest to post the most factually inaccurate rubbish you can make up about PA though. I'm still laughing at your "history" of r33. Take your own advice and if you don't have a clue, don't ****ing post.

You are implying that 3 nights in a row, there was TA on Asc, involving 4 alliances. Wishmaster on the other hand have told you that ND did normal TPs, and in atleast one of the four nights they failed to hit the asc targets. This was also apparently the case with CT, and it was basically vgn/omen the 4 nights, where CT and ND participated 2-3 nights each.
At no point did 4 alliances fully cooperate 3 out of those 4 nights. You may show logs of that targets each alliance is supposed to hit, but since there was no TA, they failed to be consistent. After all this is what the argument is about, noone doubts that asc was hit by 4 alliances over 4 days, but it was not 4 alliances EVERY night.

This also fits very well with my memory of the round. I came online that night, where our gal (2:10) had a bunch of drunkards, and we didnt DC it. A very amusing happening, which is why i can remember this night and the following nights. In this period, i remember talks about VGN/CT/ND not participating as expected, showing crappy activity in their targetting, being heavily dented by soloing members and mislaunches.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by HaNzI

You are implying that 3 nights in a row, there was TA on Asc, involving 4 alliances.

No I didn't. That's laughable. I mean I think we did TA once during that round? The only time I can remember is theam tried to do it and sucked so much I had to step in and assign some fleets. Usually we'd just put up some targets and I'd yell at people to claim and a few others would send up waves each night for their friends etc. So did we not actually go to war with anyone that round? What I meant was there was a 4 alliance block which hit Ascendancy, to whatever extent, for 3 nights in a row. This is what happened.

Wishmaster on the other hand have told you that ND did normal TPs, and in atleast one of the four nights they failed to hit the asc targets. This was also apparently the case with CT, and it was basically vgn/omen the 4 nights, where CT and ND participated 2-3 nights each.
At no point did 4 alliances fully cooperate 3 out of those 4 nights. You may show logs of that targets each alliance is supposed to hit, but since there was no TA, they failed to be consistent. After all this is what the argument is about, noone doubts that asc was hit by 4 alliances over 4 days, but it was not 4 alliances EVERY night.

No, wishmaster said he thought they might have done other tps, and the same with ct. In this he has no more knowledge of what they actually did than I do, and this is certainly the first time that has actually been suggested with me. And I didn't mention 4 nights. I said 3, with ND dropping out on the fourth night.

This also fits very well with my memory of the round. I came online that night, where our gal (2:10) had a bunch of drunkards, and we didnt DC it. A very amusing happening, which is why i can remember this night and the following nights. In this period, i remember talks about VGN/CT/ND not participating as expected, showing crappy activity in their targetting, being heavily dented by soloing members and mislaunches.

Yes totally, but that's because they were shit, not because they weren't taking part. If we'd had bunches of members who soloed etc during our war with omen it wouldn't have meant we weren't at war with omen. It'd just have meant we were doing a poor job of it.


PS That was actually a fairly reasonable reply from you considering what I was expecting

[Game^]

The mid-round co-operation was shite!

CBA trying to DC the entire Universe on Asc (landing about 2 times) and crashing millions of score was where it was at!

Oh and also him losing his entire fleet due to sleeping through alarms / wake ups because he had spent the best part of 24hours trying to get through Asc with mass waves.

[JonnyBGood]

Everyone did love CBA crashing.

[HeimdallR]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Everyone did love CBA crashing.

i missed that anyone still got a BR ?

[Zotnam]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Everyone did love CBA crashing.

Me more than anyone. Sick value gain after I got some of the kill fleets recalled I forgot the actual calc we did at the end of the round, but something like 50% of my value came from salvage, hude was not far behind though.

r30 stuff is such nostalgic memories, had nearly forgotten how long that ****ing round was to give us enough time to recover from the early war and catch up on 25 mill score + roids.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Light

Hanzi, your cant say anything remotly anti-asc on these forums, as you'll always get 3-5 posts from Asc members just flaming you and trolling, thats there main method of discussion.

Asc usually just posts a distored view of previous rounds and try to convey it as fact.. Then if anyone disagree's with those "facts", you get trolled by the Asc forum squad.

Kinda like the Asc I know from round 16-17 ... No offense, JBG

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Kinda like the Asc I know from round 16-17 ... No offense, JBG

New round, new idiots, same level of despair.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

New round, new idiots, same level of despair.

You know I do love you and Lokken and all (in a not so gay fashion), probably the only pple from Asc that I gotten along with back in the days ...

But Asc is like the "Inter Milan" of Planetarion. Aside from the good players you have (I can only judge from your first round you won) a brilliant HC. You won your first round not by having most roids or most ships, but by getting the highest amount of value within the rules of the game. For that, I dearly hate you as that's the only round I actually ended top 100 with roids and fleetvalue, while it had absolutely NO VALUE at all that round, on the opposite it gotten me more incs then I ever received lol (and in R7 I got roided dry several times by Legion and Virus)

But in the end you assured your alliance won the round, with all possible means and within game rules. So all fair and square.

Why the comparison with Inter Milan? Well, they also won against Barcelona but not by playing nice football, but thanks to the master tactic of their coach and the brilliant understanding and discipline of the game and what needs to be done, regardless what everyone else thinks about it.

Having said this, I still think Mz is a huge retard and if he played in the days I played him and I would have been fierce enemies and I'd probably tell my BC's to focus on ruining his round ;-)

[Mzyxptlk]

If you played in the days I played, you would have been unable to scan me.

[Sun_Tzu]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

...not by playing nice football, but thanks to the master tactic of their coach and the brilliant understanding and discipline of the game and what needs to be done, regardless what everyone else thinks about it.

I've never understood this argument, it's just a arbitrary limitation that people wish to take on themselves when assessing what's a great performance. For me, some of the finest football ever has been played through extreme discipline and perfect defense. You have to realize, that to shut down the best in the world takes an insane group effort, because if even one link fails, the Robinhos and Messis of this world are going to exploit them. Heck, even that one fatass might be arsed to take advantage from time to time.

It takes a lot more effort to play great as a group than to just rely on great individual contributions, and the very best performances are when you manage to combine both. That's what Asc has done when at their best. Even if those Ministry punks are always going to be rather worthless.

ps. Mz is cuddly, no hating!

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

If you played in the days I played, you would have been unable to scan me.

Well duh, I'd be unable to do many things. I'm one of the most useless planet owners in the history of this game. I'm however and excellent forum troll, AD whore and I did manage to run a top alliance for several rounds, winning 1 round in the process and winning one as a "block" and those we didn't win, we seriously contested for #1 spot (like in round 9 where we lost against Eclipse and Elysium, but that round we switched #| position over 10 times if not more).

[Mzyxptlk]

When I said "you", I meant "everyone".

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu

I've never understood this argument, it's just a arbitrary limitation that people wish to take on themselves when assessing what's a great performance. For me, some of the finest football ever has been played through extreme discipline and perfect defense. You have to realize, that to shut down the best in the world takes an insane group effort, because if even one link fails, the Robinhos and Messis of this world are going to exploit them. Heck, even that one fatass might be arsed to take advantage from time to time.

It takes a lot more effort to play great as a group than to just rely on great individual contributions, and the very best performances are when you manage to combine both. That's what Asc has done when at their best. Even if those Ministry punks are always going to be rather worthless.

ps. Mz is cuddly, no hating!

First, let me take this moment to tell you that you know **** ALL about what good football is (You live in Germany or Italy by any chance ???) ;-)

But yeah, that's why Asc won that round aswell, by outsmarting everyone else. Not because they had more quality (I'd even claim the opposite).

And I don't hate Mz, I'd actually have to care enough about him to experience such feelings, which I don't heh.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

When I said "you", I meant "everyone".

When people say "you" to me, egocentric as I am, I actually assume you mean ME, not everyone else.

I should try that next time with my gf. I'll tell her "I love you". She'll reply "ohh, I feel so happy". I'll then reply, no ... I mean "you" as in "everyone" ...

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

If EVERYONE played in the days I played, EVERYONE would have been unable to scan me.

Fixed. Makes more sence now ...

[HeimdallR]

Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu

ps. Mz is cuddly, no hating!

heard he is fluffy even

[Kjeldoran]

Have I awaken the Asc pep squad?

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Fixed. Makes more sence now ...

sigh.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

sigh.

Mmm, so you're allowed to quote pple and comment them on technicalities like this but others are not allowed to do the same to you?

Where do you buy you "logic"? Can I have some of that aswell ...

[Mzyxptlk]

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about, nor why I bother replying to your attempts at getting attention. So I'll stop doing that now.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about, nor why I bother replying to your attempts at getting attention. So I'll stop doing that now.

Short memory I see ...

And no worries, you will not ruin my world by not replying anymore, I will handle it.

[ellonweb]

Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu

I've never understood this argument, it's just a arbitrary limitation that people wish to take on themselves when assessing what's a great performance.

The general consensus is that a "great performance" in fun/enjoyable to watch. This doesn't just apply to football.

Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu

For me, some of the finest football ever has been played through extreme discipline and perfect defense.

Yes, Inter played a near-perfect defence game, but that doesn't mean it was a "great performance", it was ****ing dire to watch.

Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu

the Robinhos and Messis of this world

Did you really just put Robinho in the same category as Messi? Really?

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by ellonweb

The general consensus is that a "great performance" in fun/enjoyable to watch. This doesn't just apply to football.



Yes, Inter played a near-perfect defence game, but that doesn't mean it was a "great performance", it was ****ing dire to watch.



Did you really just put Robinho in the same category as Messi? Really?

Playing great defence is also great performance. Whether you like that or not. Personally I find it horrible, but regardless it's an important asset of the game.

Also somewhat surprised that he'd put Robinho next to Messi. If any player "could" be put next to Messi (in general, as this season nobody comes close) it would be Ronaldo.

[Sun_Tzu]

Meh, I'm Finnish, not Italian or German, and I mostly just follow the world cups these days, so take my comments on football with a bit of salt. Anyway, regardless of ell's preferences, I've always enjoyed watching German national team play, if not for any other reason than that it's not nearly as frustrating as watching Brazil play, since any given day or tournament, they may just decided to suck donkeyballs, where as Germany is always consistent.

Oh, and it was supposed to be Ronaldinho, not Robinho. Fcking Brazilians, do they really need to all be named Ro-something?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

You know I do love you and Lokken and all (in a not so gay fashion), probably the only pple from Asc that I gotten along with back in the days ...

But Asc is like the "Inter Milan" of Planetarion. Aside from the good players you have (I can only judge from your first round you won) a brilliant HC. You won your first round not by having most roids or most ships, but by getting the highest amount of value within the rules of the game. For that, I dearly hate you as that's the only round I actually ended top 100 with roids and fleetvalue, while it had absolutely NO VALUE at all that round, on the opposite it gotten me more incs then I ever received lol (and in R7 I got roided dry several times by Legion and Virus)

But in the end you assured your alliance won the round, with all possible means and within game rules. So all fair and square.

Why the comparison with Inter Milan? Well, they also won against Barcelona but not by playing nice football, but thanks to the master tactic of their coach and the brilliant understanding and discipline of the game and what needs to be done, regardless what everyone else thinks about it.

Having said this, I still think Mz is a huge retard and if he played in the days I played him and I would have been fierce enemies and I'd probably tell my BC's to focus on ruining his round ;-)

Bar the fact your comparison absolutely no sense whatsoever, and this is coming from a man who has been a fan of barcelona since ronaldinho first destroyed real in el clasico, it's worth pointing out that we won 6 other rounds since that first one, all of them via value play.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Bar the fact your comparison absolutely no sense whatsoever, and this is coming from a man who has been a fan of barcelona since ronaldinho first destroyed real in el clasico, it's worth pointing out that we won 6 other rounds since that first one, all of them via value play.

I'm infact a Real fan, so I'm happy Barcelona got beaten by such play ;-)

And why the need to feel attacked? I'm indeed talking about that 1 round (you must be blind if you didn't see my notice about this).

Look I don't care if I bruised your ego, I assumed you're someone who could be objective rather then being insulted because someone doesn't find your alliance all mighty and ohh so awesome ...

Fact is, that round you won because you played the best tactic within the limits of the game. Did you have most roids, biggest fleet, highest fleetvalue. Nope, none of that. I'm not sure but that round, score was based on Experience value or something.

By far did your alliance possess the highest quality players, but ok. You'd be stupid not to deny this.

But ok JBG, shall we play it your way and always act that your alliance clearly owned the game, no exception?

[ellonweb]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Fact is, that round you won because you played the best tactic within the limits of the game.

Yes, they did.

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Did you have most roids, biggest fleet, highest fleetvalue. Nope, none of that.

Bloody hell, idiocy is spreading again. The whole point is that they didn't need to - by your own admission above - and they were apparently the only ones (or only big group) to notice that. You can't therefore make the assumption that had the rest of the universe played the same way that they'd have beaten Asc; or vice versa, you can't assume that the people in Asc at that time would have been worse at playing a value game. And to be honest, it's not really about such assumptions, the fact is that your point is entirely flawed, you're judging Ascendancy as being worse in a metric that had no value (lulz) that round. You're just coming across as bitter about losing.

PS. I'd like to take a moment to apologise to Hanzi for commenting on a round I didn't play in. Sorry!

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by ellonweb

Yes, they did.


Bloody hell, idiocy is spreading again. The whole point is that they didn't need to - by your own admission above - and they were apparently the only ones (or only big group) to notice that. You can't therefore make the assumption that had the rest of the universe played the same way that they'd have beaten Asc; or vice versa, you can't assume that the people in Asc at that time would have been worse at playing a value game. And to be honest, it's not really about such assumptions, the fact is that your point is entirely flawed, you're judging Ascendancy as being worse in a metric that had no value (lulz) that round. You're just coming across as bitter about losing.

PS. I'd like to take a moment to apologise to Hanzi for commenting on a round I didn't play in. Sorry!

Bitter about losing in a round where I already decided to quit this game? Nope.

I wasn't dissing Asc or anything. If anything, I was complementing their command team for the cunning tactics. But ok, I see the whole Asc propaganda machine has arrived.

You're the type of pple that figure "the harder we yell and the more of us that yell, the more likely what we yell must be correct and the only truth".

rgds Kj

[Linkie]

ASCENDANCY IS THE GREATEST ALLIANCE EVER TO GRACE PLANETARION WITH IT'S PRESENCE.

Ascendancy troll squad reporting in.

[ellonweb]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I wasn't dissing Asc or anything.

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Asc won that round ... Not because they had more quality (I'd even claim the opposite).

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

You're the type of pple that figure "the harder we yell and the more of us that yell, the more likely what we yell must be correct and the only truth".

I'm debating the logic of your statements, feel free to engage in an intellectual conversation with us, or you can join the moron brigade who just ignore proper arguments because it doesn't suit their own opinions. If you choose the latter, kindly **** off from Ascendancy Discussions!

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I'm infact a Real fan, so I'm happy Barcelona got beaten by such play ;-)

And why the need to feel attacked? I'm indeed talking about that 1 round (you must be blind if you didn't see my notice about this).

Look I don't care if I bruised your ego, I assumed you're someone who could be objective rather then being insulted because someone doesn't find your alliance all mighty and ohh so awesome ...

Fact is, that round you won because you played the best tactic within the limits of the game. Did you have most roids, biggest fleet, highest fleetvalue. Nope, none of that. I'm not sure but that round, score was based on Experience value or something.

By far did your alliance possess the highest quality players, but ok. You'd be stupid not to deny this.

But ok JBG, shall we play it your way and always act that your alliance clearly owned the game, no exception?

What the ****? Do you invent like fifty words between each word I type? I did not feel attacked. I felt that, in all likelihood, you were ignorant of what had transpired while you were away from the game, and provided some further information. Even talking about twenty rounds ago in a thread clearly focused on far more recent happenings is ridiculous anyways. I have so missed your over-the-top strawman arguments kjel

To clarify you used the phrase "ascendancy is". Implying something about ascendancy in every incarnation, most particularly its current one. If you meant to talk about ascendancy in round 16 you need to modify your tenses. Otherwise you're likely to be misunderstood and presumed to be talking about something which you aren't.

For the record ascendancy's command team that round, namely rob and jester, who had created the alliance, did not originally think that xp, or more precisely ascendancy playing for xp, would prove to be a round winning formula. Some people in ascendancy did but more to the point almost all of us knew that it was possible to play a high scoring planet that way. A lot of us did, all of us realised at some point we could win that way, we did, end of story. And can we please stop talking about round 16? It's a bit much even for me

[lokken]

If we're any football team, it's AC Milan of the late 80's and early 90's.

[isildurx]

Dibs on being Van Basten

[t3k]

You just want to be Van Basted.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by lokken

If we're any football team, it's AC Milan of the late 80's and early 90's.

I was more thinking of Milan anno 2009/2010 season.

Alot of good players, but most are ott.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

I was more thinking of Milan anno 2009/2010 season.

Alot of good players, but most are ott.

I'll agree to that on the premise that I'm obviously ronaldinho.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'll agree to that on the premise that I'm obviously ronaldinho.

You are Nesta. Sorry

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

You are Nesta. Sorry

Change that to Maldini and I can still live with it!

[HeimdallR]

Originally Posted by lokken

If we're any football team, it's AC Milan of the late 80's and early 90's.

They had to much class for such an comparrison