Planetarion Forums

jerome · 22 Jul 2006, 08:53

not predictions, but preferences.

in a situation where you believe there is no reasonable chance for your own alliance to win, who would be your first preference to win instead, and why?

as a secondary question i request to be answered in this thread, if the hypothetical case as above is still true: do you value a certain number of top 10 / 20 / etc planets more or a higher losing rank? (a losing rank, is anything but #1)

lokken · 22 Jul 2006, 09:43

My preference is simply for it to kick off bigtime, so the round is a pretty open competition for quite a few alliances. I doubt 1up and Exilition agree, heh. As someone not on either side of the fence it would probably be hugely beneficial, as I think I've been pretty indiscriminate in my roiding and thus pretty hostile to both.

The alliance rank is still the hardest one to get in my view. As there seems to be few galaxies seriously going for #1 and to produce a #1 planet from somewhere, these competitions are pretty devalued until more choose to rival them in their dedication to get a good galaxy setup and play with a well, very "broad" political outlook.

furball · 22 Jul 2006, 19:15

This round I'd probably like 1up and eXil to roid each other into the ground, with Subh taking the win.

As for your secondary question, it probably needs to be more qualified when applied to Vengeance. Finishing #2 or 3-4 top 10 planets? Depends on how close we were to #1. If we were close, #2. If we weren't, the 3-4 top 10 planets.

jerome · 22 Jul 2006, 19:37

why does it matter if you were close or not? if you were sure you weren't going to win, why does the gap matter?

furball · 22 Jul 2006, 19:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerome

why does it matter if you were close or not? if you were sure you weren't going to win, why does the gap matter?

For an alliance like Vengeance, finishing #2 would be a major achievement. However, there are multiple ways of finishing #2 - it could be a r14-style #2 where there's almost no-one left, or a r17-style #2 which is very competitive. I don't see much difference between finishing #2 and getting a few top 10 planets, both have their own merits.

Murador · 23 Jul 2006, 15:50

I'd like Subh or xVx to win. Why ? Coz I like them

Tomkat · 23 Jul 2006, 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

This round I'd probably like 1up and eXil to roid each other into the ground, with Subh taking the win.

How does that work? The roids don't mysteriously disappear, someone has to own them

furball · 23 Jul 2006, 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomkat

How does that work? The roids don't mysteriously disappear, someone has to own them

Because they'd both end up low on value (read Sid's posts to see what I mean) and their roids would be picked off by the other 20 alliances.

Exode · 24 Jul 2006, 15:06

I guess I would like F-Crew to win. I like their style, sense of humor and the fact that tehy are an alliance much like HR. They cherish the prospect of bringing in both new players and old players. Thus, I would like to have seen F-Crew win if HR couldn't

Tomkat · 24 Jul 2006, 15:16

I wouldn't care as long as I finished at a higher rank than ChipZ^

JonnyBGood · 24 Jul 2006, 15:24

Probably subh as I know a few people in there and it would be nice to have the exilition/1up monotony not boring me to tears for another round.

I'd swap that for tomkat finishing behind chipz though.

wakey · 24 Jul 2006, 16:17

If i'm basing it on some kind of reality then it would have to be whichever alliance manages to perform well while playing with a degree of a social conscience. If those who make up the alliance have been able to treat those lower down with respect, have been listened to their concerns, havent undermined them and tried to in some way help them then I'm more than happy to see them win.

Probally the alliance that fit thats best atm is Subh

In a more fantasy world situation then it would probally be HR, Rock or ToF. All old alliances whom play with a strong social conscience but whom havent had the best of times over recent rounds but have stuck at it. This is something that should be applauded.

Also maybe Hidden-Agenda. They dont have the best HC in the game in terms of experiance, they have a highish turnover of members and they havent ever acheived a stand out result but they are steady and constantly achieve more than you would expect on paper and havent just dumped everything they believe in in the chase for success.

Gate · 24 Jul 2006, 23:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

This round I'd probably like 1up and eXil to roid each other into the ground, with Subh taking the win.

This round it might be more likely to happen, with the winner of a 1up-eX conflict unable to use huge XP gains to steam past an opponent (as eX did in r15), but I still have a feeling that if 1up and eXilition complete their conflict with enough time left, they have sufficient quality to overcome any other opposition.

Not meaning any disrespect to other contenders; subh are having an excellent round, but it doesn't seem they've had to prove themselves yet. Unless they've managed to get a good influx of officers, we might see a similar problem that I noticed Omen faced last round and ND have faced in previous rounds.

If your officer cadre is a bit thin and not able to cover the required times, or it lacks the experience or skills required to fight a war, an alliance can crumble. From an outsider's PoV, it happened to Omen last round. Combined with a loss of morale, it seemed that too much was perhaps resting on rain and a handful of others, who had already put in a huge amount of time. When you've fought your way through a tough round, a few days of incessant incs and the sight of your enemy steaming away untroubled can be the last straw.

The only alliance other than 1up or eX that looks like it might just have this sort of depth is, to me, escape. Subh had a great start in round 16, but ended up, in the words of a 1up member at the time; 'crumbling like week old cheese' under 1up's assault, and by the time I got involved, Infrared and Rasputin seemed to be running everything. They worked hard and well, but 2 people isn't enough, and from experience, having just 2 (or even 1) person running an alliance's military on is completely exhausting and utterly destroys your ability to fight a war properly.

As for wanting to win, I'd like to see escape do well. I like a few people there, and I think they might just have what it takes, though I sincerely doubt they'll be in with that much of a shot this round!

qebab · 25 Jul 2006, 00:07

For myself, it would almost cerainly be a question of feelings, and I am only rarely able to predict how I would feel in any given situation. In real life I am usually able to hide my feelings whenever I feel like it, but there is no reason to not display feelings on the internet, unless of course they are the kind of feelings that make you suicide a top 1 planet (Been there, done that!).

So, in a rational sense - I would almost certainly want the strongest side to go under, as it would probably make for the best round. I am fairly certain however, that if my side had no hope of winning, I would be cheering for the alliance that had most of my closest friends in it, and that the alliance that was responsible for my downfall would be bashed into ground.

Given that I have no idea who of my friends that are playing this round (cheers bacterial infections!) I don't know wich alliances that this translates to.

Gate · 25 Jul 2006, 07:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by qebab

I am fairly certain however, that if my side had no hope of winning, I would be cheering for the alliance that had most of my closest friends in it, and that the alliance that was responsible for my downfall would be bashed into ground.

For me, it would depend on how well the alliance responsible for my downfall had performed.

In the case of 1up, I've been perfectly happy to see them win on several occasions, as they did a clean, clinical job on my own alliance without resorting to mass powerblocking resulting in some nasty levels of incoming. Round 14, for example, 1up were by far the best alliance and Hydra/Insomnia/LCH needed teaching a lesson for their complete inability to do a proper job. Which ND/Insomnia/Omen did not learn last round and, again, lost. Which frustrated me quite a bit.

It changes every round; but who I'd want to win will depend on how well everyone gives the impression of performing.

If an alliance shows dependability (perhaps as an ally), and various other virtues (appears to fight fair and square or is perhaps an underdog) then I'd like to see them win.

If an alliance does something stupid that helps to lead to an unbalanced round, or if they do something that I don't like (say, leave their allies to die by NAPing the enemy), then I'll be happy to see them crushed and happy to see whoever flattens them take the win. Round 13 I would have been happy to see NoS crushed and fully supported the crushers thereof. I was particularly annoyed that I was unable to take revenge in round 14 when I had nothing better to do because they didn't have enough planets worth hitting

Round 15, Irvine was constantly threatening and insultive, and was probably one of the biggest reasons in Angels getting targetted so much by ND, as he was arrogant enough to look down on us and constantly insult us, yet incapable of delivering his threats. I was very happy to see the thrashing angels took, and they've frustrated me similarly in some other rounds, even though I do like a bunch of them. <3 Colt, icewind and smasher.

And last round I personally didn't want Omen to win, but no-one except 1up deserved the win either. Sigh.

JonnyBGood · 25 Jul 2006, 14:34

Please stay on topic in this thread, discussions concerning who deserved what in r17 are irrelevant. We're investigating personal opinions here.

Exode · 25 Jul 2006, 14:35

ty JBG

Tomkat · 25 Jul 2006, 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Please stay on topic in this thread, discussions concerning who deserved what in r17 are irrelevant. We're investigating personal opinions here.

We've answered the question.

Everyone would be happy as long as I beat ChipZ^.

There would be parties in the streets and I'd probably get some sort of statue dedicated to me or something.

MiX · 25 Jul 2006, 21:44

Its only about moral victory anyways

Treveler · 25 Jul 2006, 21:58

If its not 1up I dont really care!

Travler · 26 Jul 2006, 06:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Treveler

If its not 1up I dont really care!

Without a doubt the best sentiment on this thread.

aestuos · 26 Jul 2006, 09:47

to be honest i agree with lokken as long as the ournd gets "interesting" i dont care who wins. I hope everone gangs up on exil if there wining and i hope everone gangs in 1up if there winning as long as theres a fight to decide who wins then it will be brilliant.