Analysis of T10 alliances

[The_Fish]

1) 1up - An absolutely brilliant round. Politically perfect, although, through luck aswell as judgment. Militarily, clearly the best, hence the reason they ended at the top. 2 out of 2 is fnatastic, 3 out of 3 will be the toughest task any alliance has faced imo.

2) LCH - They played for 2nd, they got 2nd. Had they played for 1st, they might have got it, or they might have got 3rd.... they didn't take a risk for it, so I guess a well done on 2nd is in order. To win a round, they will have to grow some more balls and channel its military strength better, but 2nd is a good finish.

3) ND - ND stood up to the challenge this round and fought as hard as anyone. Not the dedication of 1up, and didn't get the luck when it was needed, 3rd is still an excellent finish. Will be tough to match next round.

4) HR - Politically a poor round for them imo. They fought til the end, however, and deserve the 4th place over WP. Came close to 3rd, but it would have been an injustice for them to beat ND. They will be in a similar position next round.

5) WP - typical WP performance, quiet throughout the round, yet still coming up with a good rank. Well done is in order, with an excellent end of round roid count, but they were never really focussed on by any alliance above them.

6) VGN - Similar to WP, didn't seem to make much noise, but got a good rank for their efforts. Will be interesting if they can follow the lead of alliances like ND and HR and manage to challenge at the top of the ranks.

7) VsN - They will be disappointed to end a lowly 7th, they made more noise and showed more balls than WP and VGN. They have gained a lot of respect for their war efforts this round, and will be challenging next round for a higher position.

8) ToF - Was quiet again, but 8th is a position they hoped for, and half way through Im sure they didn't expect to get it. Well done for the ex-Valhalla alliance, good rank and hope to see them next round.

9) MISTU - They had an excellent first half of the round, until the 'Angels' left them, and lost their best BC (sn0w). Couldn't handle the incs they received, but then, not many alliances would have been able to.

10) Angels - the FAnG BG, excellent average roid count and score, but they weren't really concentrated against, and a lot of their members were part of MISTU, so they didn't do it alone all of the way, but they did gain some excellent ranks and scores.

How bored am I? Posting this on Xmas day :/

[Nitros]

now lets wait for someone who will give an OBJECTIVE view of stuff
"1up and ND own - the rest suck"

also im curious how you can tell us how alliances will do next round

anyways, merry christmas

[-=Zyth=-]

you could have mentioned us, since angels just piped us at the last tick

Im also bored.

[Legator]

]1) 1up - An absolutely brilliant round. Politically perfect, although, through luck aswell as judgment. Militarily, clearly the best, hence the reason they ended at the top. 2 out of 2 is fnatastic, 3 out of 3 will be the toughest task any alliance has faced imo.

- im not just saying it because im a member of 1up. in an objective view 1up has been the best around , activity was great and everyone tried to help the other. there was no selfishness (or atleast i didnt recognize it) and the defending system sid and co. brought out was the most fair i ever encountered.

2) LCH - They played for 2nd, they got 2nd. Had they played for 1st, they might have got it, or they might have got 3rd.... they didn't take a risk for it, so I guess a well done on 2nd is in order. To win a round, they will have to grow some more balls and channel its military strength better, but 2nd is a good finish.

- nice round, you did good aswell, sadly all these fencesitting-shit brings some shadows on a rank you well deserve. you got awesome players, just you need to get them loyal. (atleast my feelings)

3) ND - ND stood up to the challenge this round and fought as hard as anyone. Not the dedication of 1up, and didn't get the luck when it was needed, 3rd is still an excellent finish. Will be tough to match next round.

- ND impressed me heavily. Nice round - hope you will keep up the gread work. From a medium-sized/recognized alliance to a top-alliance which encountered heavily incomings. not expected and really well done.

4) HR - Politically a poor round for them imo. They fought til the end, however, and deserve the 4th place over WP. Came close to 3rd, but it would have been an injustice for them to beat ND. They will be in a similar position next round.

- They did better also than i expected (but who am i) - nice job. Eventho some in hr had a bad feeling about getting def etc. - but well, its not easy when you playing in the tops and you did it well anyways.

5) WP - typical WP performance, quiet throughout the round, yet still coming up with a good rank. Well done is in order, with an excellent end of round roid count, but they were never really focussed on by any alliance above them.

- Hey WP - you did alot better than i personally expected. Im personally impressed about your performance. I never thought quite high of you but you really did well. Keep up the good work

6) VGN - Similar to WP, didn't seem to make much noise, but got a good rank for their efforts. Will be interesting if they can follow the lead of alliances like ND and HR and manage to challenge at the top of the ranks.

- I personally roided a lump sum of vgn planets, but most likely the most inactive onces. if i turned to a bigger one i never came through. Above average round - maybe also due the lack of good competiting alliances you got such a nice rank. Afterall a nice ranking - keep up the good work.

7) VsN - They will be disappointed to end a lowly 7th, they made more noise and showed more balls than WP and VGN. They have gained a lot of respect for their war efforts this round, and will be challenging next round for a higher position.

- VsN - there where still a big part of my heart is sitting. There choose a clear position right away (sitting with lch - tho it could have been expected) sadly it didnt performed out as it should.. . also there was a kinda fluend change of alliance of alliancemembers who could have made a different. #7 is still a good achievement but (imo) alot more could have been done. Hopefully they keep their quality members to fight a gread round 13.

8) ToF - Was quiet again, but 8th is a position they hoped for, and half way through Im sure they didn't expect to get it. Well done for the ex-Valhalla alliance, good rank and hope to see them next round.

CanT add much here, nice rank - grats

9) MISTU - They had an excellent first half of the round, until the 'Angels' left them, and lost their best BC (sn0w). Couldn't handle the incs they received, but then, not many alliances would have been able to.

-nothing much to say - if you dont control your members or atleast have loyal members you cant win anything. thats the problem if your builder of an alliance - to get good members but which are also "loyal" to their alliance and not someone else in the ally. if you let a good bunch of an ex-alliance join you always have to stroke their spokesmen or you fail.

10) Angels - the FAnG BG, excellent average roid count and score, but they weren't really concentrated against, and a lot of their members were part of MISTU, so they didn't do it alone all of the way, but they did gain some excellent ranks and scores.

- cant add much here - besides the fact that kj has been part of it and cause of that they should have been destroyed right away. (im just kidding here...am i???)

great average-score and i think some of you really roided me alot :P



How bored am I? Posting this on Xmas day :/

- dont tell me....

[alch]

10) Angels - the FAnG BG, excellent average roid count and score, but they weren't really concentrated against, and a lot of their members were part of MISTU, so they didn't do it alone all of the way, but they did gain some excellent ranks and scores.

I clearly dont agree to more than half of of what you just said, but i dont expect to understand something you never been part of, that the problem with small BG, you can understand big alliances thru their members who talks a lot and other who tell you stuff they shouldnt tell you (they are called spies or informer) or you can also see their HC acts in public, but in small group or BG, you know almost nothing and their actions and what is inside their group is almost unknown as you never been able to penetrate the shell.
This is what i am seeing right now, The_fish with all due respect to what you think, let me correct you there a little bit.

When we were MISTU, we had more problem to get our roids and more problem to get defense inside the alliance itself (because the activity sucked and i can claim that sometimes Defense were sent based on totally wrong and immorale standarts of the DC department tho we defended a HELL lot more than what people though we were)
The day when we splitted, we were half destroyed, we lost one by one out top20 planets, (we had several who got roided without getting a single defense, you can ask Artanys, who left MISTU after getting roided by a silly fleet of 100k fi) we started Angels on a ground of disorganisation, we had no tools, no arbiter, no bot, no defense bot, no channels. we had to do it all manually, and the pressure grew on our BCs and DCs, while in MISTU, setting Attacks and DCing was quite Easy, all their technical tools were perfect.

When we decided we would split we took in mind all this, and said we would play for the fun as it would be impossible to give ourselves a good round with the activity and only 30-40 players.
So the part when you says that we didnt do it all the way is missinrerpreted, we were part of MISTU and we didnt had it easy there, we were a BG of only 30% of MISTU but had 70% of the Alliance's Firepower, our Best DC and BC werent allowed to DC/BC because of some Ego clashes and their fear that they would loose their identity. if you wanna win, you have to be professional which mean you hire the best guys from your alliance to work with you, and they failed doing this.

About the "we werent concentrated against" - again you are wrong, the fact we were smaller but with the time Grew a bigger avergage score and roids than all other alliances, just had us in a position that no one had any Official Tie with us and we were attacked as we were easy and juicy targets,
you can ask 1up, and their members, and the fact the last 2 weeks we had a lot of incoming from them is not because we were attacking a lot of them and were getting retals (tho we attacked some of them randomally) But it was more because we were the only targets they could target and the game is about growing, and when half the big players are napped to 1up and other winning alliances, the pressure falls on other top100 players, we were targeted and i can tell you that each of our member were smsed/called over 5 times a night to not only send defense but also recall the defense in TIME, so they would be able to send again for NEXT waves in the night.

WE were a small alliance of 35 players (5 of them were scanners and players who didnt play actively but remained in the CORE) and we had a lot of incoming if we talk in percentage per members:
Lets says alliance A has 100 members and has approximately 100-120 incomings a night and Alliance B has 50 members and has 100 incoming fleets at a night, then i would say that Alliance B has more incoming than alliances A tho alliance A, numerically has more incoming per night but spread on a larger memberbase. (1.2 incoming per member in alliance A - 2 incoming fleet per member in Alliance B)
Plus it pushed us to attack with 1 fleet a night, and some of us were 3 fleet defending over the night and couldnt roid, we just succeded in preserving our roids and roiding at the same PACE since we quit MISTU in an organized manner sometimes and sometime unorganized.

Now that you have my view you may comment on what you think about Angels.

P.S: i am not bored, i just took it personally for all our member who did give their 120% like in a winning alliance, but because we ended top10, and some alliance member dont have enough info about us, they post their own personal view and i find it to be rather wrong (which is legitimate) and find the need to correct him.
And i am not celebrating Xmas anyway so..

[The_Fish]

Wahey, I stand corrected.

We'll agree to disagree on a few points, like I said, excellent average roids and score, but you never were truly concentrated on. Good job.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Nitros

now lets wait for someone who will give an OBJECTIVE view of stuff
"1up and ND own - the rest suck"

also im curious how you can tell us how alliances will do next round

anyways, merry christmas

TBH, I never said that ND owned, or that anyone sucked. I said both positive and negative things about almost all allies.

[Seth Mace]

I'm not gonna reply with what i think because itll just turn this thread into a flame:P

Instead, Happy Xmas everyone!

[lokken]

1up - did a great job of underplaying their hand, and slowly rose up the rankings. Probably won as result of fear factor more than anything else, thanks to fencesitters and LCH's lack of ambition. That's not to say they aren't the best, because they are, it's just that on their numbers and reputation, they weren't expecting to get 1st.

LCH - I am frustrated with what to think on LCH. On the one hand they were outstanding in the attack, yet sheltered fencesiiters and lack any ambition. I fail to understand why they didn't believe they could win, considering they had so many people behind them. It's disappointing, quite frankly, when a rival alliance with such ability doesn't believe it could win. LCH will never win a round if it doesn't change. No doubt will be powerful next round with LCH(B) and VGN helping them out.

ND - ND have punched well above their weight this round, and have, in my opinion, improved a great ideal. We've attacked with considerably more venom this round, and tried to defend as stoutly as ever. ND could have won this round, but it was in the hands of others, rather than their own, and hence suffered. ND must learn big lessons from this round if they are to progress, so that when they get into a winning position, they can have their fate in their own hands. ND's greatest enemy next round will be complacency, and they'll have to work doubly hard if they are to be an alliance dangerous enough to surpass all others. All that aside - they can be proud of the performance they achieved, and although they might deserve more than 3rd, they'll have to be happy with it.

HR - a resilient, gritty performance. Generally stayed on the periphery of things, were very difficult to break down, although on their day had the distinct ability to be a right pain in the arse - they probably considered themselves unlucky to finish 4th, but personally I think that was more opportunism from ND's severe battering.

Other than that, I don't really have other comments.

[mens]

a whole round of 1up buttlicking and they haven't recruited you yet? that must sukc for you =\

[Kjeldoran]

as alch said, I'd be carefull to judge something most of you have absolutely not the slightest intell on. Angels have worked for their top10 spot. Angels have worked for their avg score and avg roids. We all were 72 hours alliances during midround and some of us got roided dry during that period.

I'd call it rather unfair just saying "we didn't do it alone" ...

And tbh, who of you can fairly say we didn't get specifically targetted? None of you had even the slightest intell on us.

When Angels left mistu, we weren't even top 5 on avg score or roids. We gained everything from there on our own and tbh, Angels was the quality that was in mistu. Don't forget Angels didn't plan on leaving, but were more or less forced into a position where we had no other options.

On a more friendly note, Legator is correct. I'm dissappointed you didn't try to kill us for hosting me !!

[Stals]

nonshocker how 1ups say 1up owned, ND say ND owned and Angels say Angels owned, and so on..

still Nitros didn't comment about LCH, which means LCH ain't happy with this round, and 1up, ND and Angels seems to be, guess thats why ppl bother to argue about it.
I'm also curious what HR, WP, VsN, VGN and MISTU gonna comment from their point of view about their own alliances

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

as alch said, I'd be carefull to judge something most of you have absolutely not the slightest intell on. Angels have worked for their top10 spot. Angels have worked for their avg score and avg roids. We all were 72 hours alliances during midround and some of us got roided dry during that period.

I'd call it rather unfair just saying "we didn't do it alone" ...

And tbh, who of you can fairly say we didn't get specifically targetted? None of you had even the slightest intell on us.

When Angels left mistu, we weren't even top 5 on avg score or roids. We gained everything from there on our own and tbh, Angels was the quality that was in mistu. Don't forget Angels didn't plan on leaving, but were more or less forced into a position where we had no other options.

On a more friendly note, Legator is correct. I'm dissappointed you didn't try to kill us for hosting me !!

Mistu had to pay the price for accepting Angels as BG. At first it seems to b a good idea but when the though gets going you are only left with the core and thats not the BG you acceoted pre-round.

I have no doubt Agels are one elite group of players but they were not lojal to mistu as a normal player would be.

External BG`s allways has and allway will be abad idea. It would be nice to see what Angels realy are able to doo next round. I really hope you will play!

Treveler.

[alch]

Originally Posted by Treveler

Mistu had to pay the price for accepting Angels as BG. At first it seems to b a good idea but when the though gets going you are only left with the core and thats not the BG you acceoted pre-round.

I have no doubt Agels are one elite group of players but they were not lojal to mistu as a normal player would be.

External BG`s allways has and allway will be abad idea. It would be nice to see what Angels realy are able to doo next round. I really hope you will play!

Treveler.

You are totally right treveler, there is no doubt that BG are bad for an alliance, it take a very good leader to be able to use it to your own purpose in your alliance and its politics, I remember in FAnG round10 when i came back to play, BG were formed and one BG did split up from FAnG the time back and in, that time i started to think how a BG could possibly harm an alliance and i found more negative points than positive points.

That why in round10.5, when i reformed FAnG, one of our basic points was to go on without External BG and no mass recruitment, but go on with a core and recruit around it.
Tho i must say, we were for a long time, behaving and i always given my member a slap in MISTU when they were acting as "FAnGer", that did change and i started to care less, when MISTU certain officer did start to kick me or behave in a disloyal way (i tend to think loyal is both way, member to alliance and alliance to member) and started to misprejudice me just for the only fact i was ex-FAnG HC, taking in fact that MISTU HC did back up several Officer, i started to care less and go on until the point i didnt have anything left to offer to MISTU and i saw my member really not inclined to play anymore.

They all wanted to leave or not play anymore, and i remember i was doing personal talk with almost everyone of them everyday just to make sure they wouldnt quit PA because they werent enjoying. When i choosed to leave MISTU personally because of some events that happened in MISTU, the member started to follow little by little over the few next day.

What can i say? i am still sorry for leaving them in the middle of the round, and more or less a lot of people would say that it would be like leaving a sinking ship and that i should have step up to help them not going down, but what can i say when i have been refused until the last minute to help them even as an unofficial officer (they wouldnt allow me to become officer because some of their officer would leave because they didnt like FAnG- how immature) and even i was running quite a bit their attacks for my BG and sometimes for the whole alliance.

I Think that this round, people understood that external BG arent good for an alliance, and i still find some alliance leader asking me in private if i could come over their alliance next round, and i find it shocking that even tho they know BG arent good, they need us to be sure they win next round, with all the negative thing that can happen from bringing an external BG in.

I declined all offer of course, knowing this wouldnt work and now that i have the perfect proof that even a 67 alliance can pwn everyone asses ( hi 1up!) and a BG with only 35 member can also do very well ( hi Angels!).

I would like to thanks some individual who helped us there and here with defense when we were alone in the ground and theses night we were getting a LOAD of incomings, and prevented alliance to land by sending some ships in our rescue.

dear alch, I have not altered any of the content of this post - i've merely added some paragraph spacing to make it easier for other users to read - hope you don't mind - Lok

[Assassin]

What im Curious about though this round was i thought alliances such as 1up came to PA to prevent blocking, however it was obvious that ND and 1up were allied, also rumours about WP being with them.. isnt this basically against what was set out in the first place? To prevent blocked wars? I agree to the comments said above, 1up did earn the victory they are a great bunch of players and not to mention hard working, and so are ND, but also ND have to admit them being allied to 1up also helped there carrear this round. Even 6 of your own members have admitted that to me, especially one in pertic who bosted that several 1ups cudnt attack him even if they wanted to.. But yes i agree 1up deserved the win, but people cant put all the critism on lch for fecne sitting when other allies did the same in my eyes. Well ill see you all in round 13. And Angels (Alch and KJ) gud luck.. ill look forward to seeing you next round

[The_Fish]

I can only speak for ND, but there was no big block wars this round. It was a very fluid round, and until LCH started battering ND, the victors of the round was uncertain, which is the latest it has been since R6.

As for Angels, I will wait to see them achieve something impressive next round before my view point changes, they can claim all that they want, but whilst they were only alone for half a round it is quite meaningless. Similar to FAnG, they havent consistently been at the top, if they perform well next round, then I will heap a lot of praise on them, like I have 1up this round. It is not because of a nap, or anything like that, but because they deserve it. No-one can deny 1up deserve praise this round. Should Angels perform well next round, all round, then they will no doubt get more praise. A lot of cynical people (such as myself) are still a bit wary of how good they are.

Prove me wrong.

[alch]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

I can only speak for ND, but there was no big block wars this round. It was a very fluid round, and until LCH started battering ND, the victors of the round was uncertain, which is the latest it has been since R6.

As for Angels, I will wait to see them achieve something impressive next round before my view point changes, they can claim all that they want, but whilst they were only alone for half a round it is quite meaningless. Similar to FAnG, they havent consistently been at the top, if they perform well next round, then I will heap a lot of praise on them, like I have 1up this round. It is not because of a nap, or anything like that, but because they deserve it. No-one can deny 1up deserve praise this round. Should Angels perform well next round, all round, then they will no doubt get more praise. A lot of cynical people (such as myself) are still a bit wary of how good they are.

Prove me wrong.

About next round, i am uncertain if Angels will play.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Assassin

What im Curious about though this round was i thought alliances such as 1up came to PA to prevent blocking, however it was obvious that ND and 1up were allied, also rumours about WP being with them.. isnt this basically against what was set out in the first place? To prevent blocked wars? I agree to the comments said above, 1up did earn the victory they are a great bunch of players and not to mention hard working, and so are ND, but also ND have to admit them being allied to 1up also helped there carrear this round. Even 6 of your own members have admitted that to me, especially one in pertic who bosted that several 1ups cudnt attack him even if they wanted to.. But yes i agree 1up deserved the win, but people cant put all the critism on lch for fecne sitting when other allies did the same in my eyes. Well ill see you all in round 13. And Angels (Alch and KJ) gud luck.. ill look forward to seeing you next round

1up, quite rightly I believe, dropped the pretentious BS about wanting to play the game solo, and just got down and played the game in the manner i believe it should be - bit of skill, bit of politics. We have learned from 1up, yes (can't any alliance though), but it was up to us to get ourselves out of the hole we were in after LCH et al steamed in on us, you can't get 1up to do that for us - last round we kept falling, this round we just got back up and gave a few people a headache. The politics this round were fine, as the round was highly competitive the way through - I'd go as far to say we might be able to call r12 a 'classic' which is testament to all alliances who played it.

ND does have its faults and indeed has clear, obvious weaknesses - I can see that, I believe you see them, and hope our HC will attend to them. We do however, have a great bunch to work with, and we'll do all we can to get better.

From my point of view, the 1up agreement was the best political move we could have made, and was to our benefit. I'm pleased that 1up won because we stopped LCH getting their way via our resiliance, but i'm more gutted that we didn't win, because we could have.

As for Angels, like any alliance they'll be judged the minute they get chucked into a war proper. Like any alliance, best of luck to 'em. Their members seem to have some mettle looking at their average, so they might have something about them, for sure.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

I can only speak for ND, but there was no big block wars this round. It was a very fluid round, and until LCH started battering ND, the victors of the round was uncertain, which is the latest it has been since R6.

As for Angels, I will wait to see them achieve something impressive next round before my view point changes, they can claim all that they want, but whilst they were only alone for half a round it is quite meaningless. Similar to FAnG, they havent consistently been at the top, if they perform well next round, then I will heap a lot of praise on them, like I have 1up this round. It is not because of a nap, or anything like that, but because they deserve it. No-one can deny 1up deserve praise this round. Should Angels perform well next round, all round, then they will no doubt get more praise. A lot of cynical people (such as myself) are still a bit wary of how good they are.

Prove me wrong.

another one dragging FAnG into the discussion, I don't wanna start arguing about that tbh, we won a round and the rest doesn't matter to me.

And I do think Angels have proven something. That it has far more dedicated, active and skilled members then any other top alliance (but 1up). It's not that we actively recruited to players to get our avg higher then the rest (but 1up again).

Our avg wasn't also "just" better then e.g. lch but it was infact 20% of lch's avg score better then LCH. And even more then other alliance like ND. Same with roids. We're not talking about close calls, if you can't see the obvious difference then you're idd cynical or just blind.

The sole reason that numerious alliances have approached us to join them next round as BG, means they value what we've accomplished. We're not asking to treated like hero's, we just react on your rather poor description of Angels because we believe you nor anyone else posting here has enough details and information about Angels (but angels members ofc).

It's ok to not believe we're quality before you've seen it, but then atleast don't make up an opinion about us based on that while you know nothing about Angels (which you cannot be blamed for, hardly anyone knows something about us).

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

And I do think Angels have proven something. That it has far more dedicated, active and skilled members then any other top alliance (but 1up). It's not that we actively recruited to players to get our avg higher then the rest (but 1up again).

The missconception of someone who would love to be a big player...
You could say you have 35 good players but this will tell you nothing about any other alliance or allow you any comparison. The average score is calculated by the average. This means you will always be better off with the "sweets" then with a mix. As you just have 35 players, 1/3rd roughly of the other top alliances its quiet unfair to boast your chest about more skilled and more dedicated players, cause every one of them could infact have 36 similar dedicated or good players but 60 slacks dragging down the whole picture.
The point about "recruiting" made me smile.
If you realise you were infact a group of "defectors" who complained about the lack of activity and dedication in mistu, its obvious that you would not take a bunch of lamers or semi active guys along.

Our avg wasn't also "just" better then e.g. lch but it was infact 20% of lch's avg score better then LCH. And even more then other alliance like ND. Same with roids. We're not talking about close calls, if you can't see the obvious difference then you're idd cynical or just blind.

Now you understand why the average score is a nice "addition but nothing more. If the topplanet would make its own aliance in the last days its obvious it would "own" everyone on average score and roids while it would literally not be worth the waste of space its printed on.
(and this is just a drastic example as im sure we could get similar examples by throwing just 15 top 100 planets together in a mix of some top150 ones)

The sole reason that numerious alliances have approached us to join them next round as BG, means they value what we've accomplished. We're not asking to treated like hero's, we just react on your rather poor description of Angels because we believe you nor anyone else posting here has enough details and information about Angels (but angels members ofc).

yes you were always a person who told everyone they know nothing about "your" inner workings or about who you are and what they think. Ironically you are always swift to make posts to gloat about your own info. Sit back and think, maybe one of your glorious angels talked to somoene or maybe you have a spy. If a secret is known by 2 ppl its not a secret anymore, so please dont try to be mysterious, thats not working anymore in a 2-3k planet environment.

It's ok to not believe we're quality before you've seen it, but then atleast don't make up an opinion about us based on that while you know nothing about Angels (which you cannot be blamed for, hardly anyone knows something about us).

You tell him that you know that he knows nothing about you and further you know that noone knows something. Seems we have found the only omniscient person on this whole planet

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by alch

You are totally right treveler, there is no doubt that BG are bad for an alliance, it take a very good leader to be able to use it to your own purpose in your alliance and its politics, I remember in FAnG round10 when i came back to play, BG were formed and one BG did split up from FAnG the time back and in, that time i started to think how a BG could possibly harm an alliance and i found more negative points than positive points.

That why in round10.5, when i reformed FAnG, one of our basic points was to go on without External BG and no mass recruitment, but go on with a core and recruit around it.
Tho i must say, we were for a long time, behaving and i always given my member a slap in MISTU when they were acting as "FAnGer", that did change and i started to care less, when MISTU certain officer did start to kick me or behave in a disloyal way (i tend to think loyal is both way, member to alliance and alliance to member) and started to misprejudice me just for the only fact i was ex-FAnG HC, taking in fact that MISTU HC did back up several Officer, i started to care less and go on until the point i didnt have anything left to offer to MISTU and i saw my member really not inclined to play anymore.

They all wanted to leave or not play anymore, and i remember i was doing personal talk with almost everyone of them everyday just to make sure they wouldnt quit PA because they werent enjoying. When i choosed to leave MISTU personally because of some events that happened in MISTU, the member started to follow little by little over the few next day.

What can i say? i am still sorry for leaving them in the middle of the round, and more or less a lot of people would say that it would be like leaving a sinking ship and that i should have step up to help them not going down, but what can i say when i have been refused until the last minute to help them even as an unofficial officer (they wouldnt allow me to become officer because some of their officer would leave because they didnt like FAnG- how immature) and even i was running quite a bit their attacks for my BG and sometimes for the whole alliance.

I Think that this round, people understood that external BG arent good for an alliance, and i still find some alliance leader asking me in private if i could come over their alliance next round, and i find it shocking that even tho they know BG arent good, they need us to be sure they win next round, with all the negative thing that can happen from bringing an external BG in.

I declined all offer of course, knowing this wouldnt work and now that i have the perfect proof that even a 67 alliance can pwn everyone asses ( hi 1up!) and a BG with only 35 member can also do very well ( hi Angels!).

I would like to thanks some individual who helped us there and here with defense when we were alone in the ground and theses night we were getting a LOAD of incomings, and prevented alliance to land by sending some ships in our rescue.

dear alch, I have not altered any of the content of this post - i've merely added some paragraph spacing to make it easier for other users to read - hope you don't mind - Lok

Yeah you have highlighted the major dissadvantages with external BG`s and the fact that mistu didnt accept you as "normal" members only proves that the blaim is not laid on the BG`s alone.

I know, after playing with you guyes in pax, that the core of fang is one elite group of players. Its up to you if you want to increase you memberbase or not, but either way I have no doubt you will do pretty damn well next round if you desides to play.

[Chika]

As far as gameplay, you can blanket analyze most of the top 10 as "(alliance name here) stinks". Most alliances, to be specific, VSN/HR/ANGELS(sorry ANGELS)/WP/MISTU, would not even be in the top 10 if there were any proper alliances. I can go as far as saying the core of each Alliance against each other, We would see a very different outcome of the top 10 rankings. With the return of ToT and ministry, I hope half ass alliances like VSN/HR/WP get knocked out of top 10, of finish at the butt end of it. ToT/Ministry, please own these guys. Thks.

[Gate]

I've been impressed by what Angels have done this round. They have no where near the tools, and though it's obviously easier to run a 35 man alliance, I'd guess it's difficult to get 35 elite, loyal and committed players together plus the BCs and DCs who have the time to commit to this.

Whilst talking to some BCs and HCs of one or two other alliances, I've heard very good words said of Angels in a military capacity (something along hte lines of 'it's good HR have several members in Angels galaxies, Angels are solid on defence, and we need to get our roids from somewhere!' <<<Before HR take offence, that was not said by me)

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Chika

As far as gameplay, you can blanket analyze most of the top 10 as "(alliance name here) stinks". Most alliances, to be specific, VSN/HR/ANGELS(sorry ANGELS)/WP/MISTU, would not even be in the top 10 if there were any proper alliances. I can go as far as saying the core of each Alliance against each other, We would see a very different outcome of the top 10 rankings. With the return of ToT and ministry, I hope half ass alliances like VSN/HR/WP get knocked out of top 10, of finish at the butt end of it. ToT/Ministry, please own these guys. Thks.

Chika, may I remind you that most current Angels were YOUR buddies in FAnG who brought you to #2 few rounds ago? I think most of those pple have already proven that they're top quality.

[Alki]

Originally Posted by Treveler

Mistu had to pay the price for accepting Angels as BG. At first it seems to b a good idea but when the though gets going you are only left with the core and thats not the BG you acceoted pre-round.

I have no doubt Agels are one elite group of players but they were not lojal to mistu as a normal player would be.

External BG`s allways has and allway will be abad idea. It would be nice to see what Angels realy are able to doo next round. I really hope you will play!

Treveler.

you have no idea mate. Mistu paid the price for there own members not cutting it. On most nights our core took more targets than mistu itself. We had top defenders in mistu, yet failed to recieve defence most of the time, im not bitching as i really enjoyed my time at mistu and met alot of ppl i can now call friends, but as a group it was decided this was the best thing to do if we were to salvage anything from the round. Also it gave me another reason to start playing properly again, after being bashed from top10 and continuing incommings with no or little defence. On a side note mistu had some top players and i was happy to fight side by side with them, and hope they are back to full force next round cheers guys

[jerome]

Top 5 alliances:
1up - unbelievably good luck (idiocy of opponents was a real boost ;o) alongside other factors made this quite a good round for them.
LCH - .................. ;D .... yeah, superb round for them. Achieved what they were obviously aiming for with nice comfort:).
ND - Did well to hang in top4, let alone top3 imo, with the amount of incs they got.
HR - What was said above for ND goes for HR too, unlucky to get pipped out of #4 spot.
WP - surprisingly comfortably slotted into a top5 slot but played thier cards right via underplaying & quite casually slipping in through the round.

So all top5 alliances really need a pat on their back for getting nearly what they were aiming for really, except maybe HR who were probably going for #2, but they & their partners in crime clashed in that desire thus there were cute consequences.

[Shev]

And in today's 1up/ND "Let's blow each other publicly and flame everyone else" thread........

[lokken]

I've tried to be objective and balanced :|

[jerome]

Hey, I was fair !

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Shev

And in today's 1up/ND "Let's blow each other publicly and flame everyone else" thread........

Ya it is rather obvious tbh. There hasn't been an ND saying a single bad thing about 1up (is there a bad thing about them?) or a 1up saying a single bad thing about ND ....

Lokken, you tried to be as objective as possible, but still from your rather ND biassed approach (which is normal). I for one would claim the nap with 1up was a VERY stupid decision, but that's just my oppinion and it's based on my biassed approach.

I think an alliance that managed to get top3 or even top5 has performed decently, period. I'm sure EVERY alliance could have done certain things better, and yes, that includes 1up. They are not gods either, they're just the best atm.

[Fyodor]

I dont think any of the alliances ranked #2 to #9 deserve any type of props because, what it comes down to is that none of them where able to take down an alliance that had 30+ less members then they did. All this round proves is what utter shiite the most of the "top" alliances are. The fact that they are now on AD congratulating themselves and each other is utterly ridiculous.

[Recluse]

tbh, I haveto take offense at what is being said against Angels, especially as I originated as an outsider. I wasn't part of the Angels BG in Mistu. Rather, I was in NoS at the beginning of this round. There came a time when I decided to leave, and looked up some old friends from my previous rounds in FAnG. ~2 weeks later when Angels split off of Mistu, I joined up. At that point, the future of my round looked to be nothing more then a little roiding, a lot of def, and just having fun with my old friends.

Slowly, over the course of the next week, I watched as we grew to our 30+ member group. Soon, attacks started getting posted, and DC's were doing calls. Both were getting covered nicely. I think I speak for the rest of those 35 when I say that at that point I knew we had places to go and people to roid.

To say we made t10 becuase we were never concentrated is laughable, for 2 reasons.

1) For any single alliance to concentrate on us would have been difficult, considering our overall spread in galaxies, as well as our size.

2) What kind of alliance would seriously consider targetting an alliance not in the t10 with only 35 members in a concentrated manner? I mean, talk about having bigger fish to fry :P The alliances capable of doing it were too busy fighting off their 90-100 member enemies in an effort to improve or maintain their t5 rankings, and the alliances outside of the t5 were either uninterested, scared, or incapable.

We had incoming. We had large incoming. Having 9 members in t100 tends to lead to that. We covered those incomings. We roided. We roided daily. We were active. We were dedicated to the cuase. This is why we got t10. No half-bit excuse about not getting concentrated on can say otherwise. We could say the same about all the alliances from 4th down, to be quite honest.



P.S. Covering 67k FR incoming on one planet can be considered an accomplishment for any alliance ranked at 10th or 11th, but to also be an alliance of 35 members, and to cover it more then a couple times a day, should lend some credibility to our rank, if nothing else should. And we didn't have planets building nothing but corsair or spider def fleets like some alliances *cough*

Edit: Just noticed the reference to alot of our members being Mistu....
99% of the people I dealt with on a daily basis for attacks and defense were in-game alliance Angels. occasionally we'd get an attack fleet from outside, and on even more rare occasions a def fleet, as def is hard for outsiders to make, but our rank/score/roids were not gained or retained by members still part of other alliances, but by those 35 devoted individuals in the in-game alliance.

[Shev]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

I dont think any of the alliances ranked #2 to #9 deserve any type of props because, what it comes down to is that none of them where able to take down an alliance that had 30+ less members then they did. All this round proves is what utter shiite the most of the "top" alliances are. The fact that they are now on AD congratulating themselves and each other is utterly ridiculous.

Good job of not reading the thread!

Actually, there's very little congratulation going on, and you also have to take into account that some of the top 10 were allied with 1up - which also makes it significantly harder for them to be taken down.

My slightly sarcastic post above was a bit of an exaggeration - the usual trolls like Chika and Fish aside, most opinions have been fairly balanced and objective.

Kj, to be honest it's hard to see what ND and 1up could really say about each other thats not complimentary. Both played a damn good round, helped again by selfish players accepting planet naps.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

I for one would claim the nap with 1up was a VERY stupid decision, but that's just my oppinion and it's based on my biassed approach.

What on earth.. ?

Would you have joined LCH & peon block as ND when they had been receiving lots of incomings their way themselves from said block ? My "guess"* would be no, as SOME people DO have testicular fortitude, enough of said fortitude to fight against numbers and also get some logic in political & military judgement (want me to dig up my posts earlier showing how alliance firepower coordination has not really been LCH & peonblock`s strongest point again? neither has their political side by how they handled this heh).

So I for one would claim, that their NAP was more out of no choice & necessity than anything else, what would have been STUPID is expecting ND to cower to LCH's demands after their treatment or "clever" tactics in targetting them or ND to join the lch&peon block.


*guess as in assumption based upon what I know of you, as I don't really think your dumb(well, debatable :p) nor a coward.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Chika, may I remind you that most current Angels were YOUR buddies in FAnG who brought you to #2 few rounds ago? I think most of those pple have already proven that they're top quality.

KJ, I never said ANGEL's sucked. They rock. I did however state that they would not be top 10 if any proper alliances were playing. Thats a hard arguement on my behalf considering they were only 35 members. But, it is a safe argument because I doubt that those 35 members would have finished top 10. It would not be a failure.

[lokken]

Actually a more accurate analysis of ND might be (I don't know the reasoning nor do I dictate or advise upon ND political policy) would be that if 1up were eliminated they would have been up against LCH, LCH(B), MISTU, VGN and HR. I think ND would probably be the first to go in that scenario.

I don't think ND really 'hates' any alliance as such - I'd like to think we've got an HC that makes objective political decisions, rather than ones out of spite. I for one am fairly honest about PA, I view every alliance as my enemy/rival, but i'm more than happy to work with anyone to the full capacity to achieve our mutual interest.

[alch]

Originally Posted by chika

KJ, I never said ANGEL's sucked. They rock. I did however state that they would not be top 10 if any proper alliances were playing. Thats a hard arguement on my behalf considering they were only 35 members. But, it is a safe argument because I doubt that those 35 members would have finished top 10. It would not be a failure.

We would and i know my stuff.


An increase in Alliances capable of playing wouldnt have make us unable to end top10 but in the opposite, i think we would have get ranked higher, for the simple fact, that the alliances would have fought so hard and and in a disciplined way, that there wouldnt be any Planetary NAP and 1up would have hit theses alliances in question and the other alliances would have concentrated on them, we would have gotten less BIG Random incoming from all the top10 alliances because they wouldnt be allowed to hit a neutral target while they have a solid as rock adversary on the battleground still breathing.
our last 2 weeks were one of the hardest because, come random players from alliance who were supposed to fight 1up were hitting us to gain roids on random day attacks/nights, and 1up who had Planetary NAP had to go elsewhere to gain their roids, and hit us (while i know for fact we werent on their target list as an alliance but just because we werent napped and we were "easy roids" in technical terms).
Now after listening to Chika laying down his vision which i find it a little bit stupid (no offense mate, but you aint the "oracle" and no matter what you think you know from Angels, you are far from the reality) i Am very tempted to give myself a one more shot for the next round just to prove to other guys that Angels has very high chances to end top10 again with the same limited core member, and if we decide to go on with the same senate as this round, the possibility that we will recruit up to 100 is 0%.
We have learnt that its better to drag an alliance with 30-40 members who want to play and play for one cause, than playing with 60% of loyal guys with another 40% disloyal and immature players who in fact drag the other 60% of the alliance.

About what behem0th said, he is right, 1up done impressively well, and i was surprised they ended top1, i never though they would end top1, and for all the alliances HCs that claimed they would all round and said "oh look evil 1up are top6 but they know their stuff and will play it dirty" my question to you guys is: if you knew they would win and everyday you tried to recruit more alliances in the cause to take them down, why didnt you start from your inside alliance and started to recruit your own member to the cause to fight them instead of recruiting outsider.
When a country goes for a very difficult decision to go to war against another nation, they have to make sure that their own citizens believe in this decision before even allying other nations to help them in the cause.

[JonnyBGood]

Out of 10 objectively:

9,6,7,7,7,7,6,7,5,8.

Out of 10 based on my expectations pre-round

8,5,8,6,7,7,6,8,6,7

In summation 1up were good but then we expected that. However I did think lch would manage to beat them down so I'd rate them poorly for that failure. ND were decent but they've always had potential, this round they merely started to actualise it. HR were solid but with LCH's failure they were left in a difficult situation (however this is partly a failing politically in recognising abilities pre-round so not a total get-out clause). Wolfpack did well but neither faced a real concerted effort against them nor targetted the alliances above them heavily. VGN performed similarly to wolfpack (hence the same ratings ) VsN fought well but suffered due to political decisions and a drop-off in activity towards the end. ToF did very well considering the relative inexperience officer and HC wise (or did some old pros lend a hand there?) MISTU lost two important HC this round and were absolutely ****ed by nearly every alliance at one point. While the first point is unfortunate the second is a political failing. Angels did well considering their size but considering what I feel they could have accomplished it's not amazing.

Overall more people need to learn how to attack properly and for god's sake 1up and newdawn are getting rated well because they ****ing won you idiots.

[alch]

Overall more people need to learn how to attack properly and for god's sake 1up and newdawn are getting rated well because they ****ing won you idiots.

ROFL, you are SO right, 1up and ND won the round, thanks a lot bye.

[Gerbie]

I'm not sure how every alliance performed. 1up won. That's an accomplishment worth of praise. The others didn't win.

Off topic: some alliances seem to refuse cleaning house and just go form a bigger block instead. On the other hand it's 1ups policy that made this possible. Their policy to try to stay friendly with as many players as possible leads to bigger blocks.
1up has the ability to change that (first they help putting an end to the big blocks and now they help re-creating them...). I'm waiting for that to happen... Santa, plz gimme my present!

[Legator]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

.

And I do think Angels have proven something. That it has far more dedicated, active and skilled members then any other top alliance (but 1up). It's not that we actively recruited to players to get our avg higher then the rest (but 1up again).

.

omg kjel, sometimes your even more than just stupid.

[DukePaul]

Originally Posted by Stals

I'm also curious what [...] VGN [...] gonna comment from their point of view about their own alliances

Really?

Well, last round we were a part of rock, but was not entirely happy with things (don't ask me, I don't play PA in the summer/late spring). So the call went out, and we decided we would play if we managed to bring in 30 of the members to play. This was no problem at all, at the start of the round I think we had around 75 VGN members ready, and as usual we recruited a few new ones - mostly on vouch, but also a few noobs (I'd like to point out Iron, 20:6:8, this is the first PA round he has ever played, and he ended on a nice 290th or so).

As is known by now, we worked with MISTU all round, and had a NAP with ROCK (DeadlRock later). During the early round, we did not participate in the attacks on Absolute (atleast, I think we didn't, might be wrong ), as I personally felt it was a wrong thing to do. Absolute was new as an alliance, but getting constantly attacked made sure that they never got to build a stable community and become a lasting alliance. We were generally minding our own business, and hitting naughty galaxies.

Then came the time when we lost 31:2:1 (Bee). The story here is a bit confused, depending on who you listen to, but bottom line is that the HC agreed to trust Bee to rejoin VGN after the 72 ticks were over. This didn't happen, and he joined LCH. Partially therefore (also because LCH was very hostile), we gathered other alliances to attack LCH (as they were #1), but the others didn't seem to interested in attacking them (felt it was unfair to gang up so many on one alliance, had more pressing enemies etc etc), so after about a week we were halved in number of alliances attacking LCH, and we felt we couldn't contiune with it - especially as LCH focues on us for a day or two. So, we had a talk with LCH, and decided on a gentelmens agreement on avoiding each other, and instead to focus on 1up. By now, the round had come to the point where only it was only two possible winners - 1up or LCH. And, faced with two evils, we felt that LCH was the lesser one.

The rest of the round, we attacked with the MISTU/LCH/HR/Angels/VsN group on 1up and ND, but as we all know, we didn't have much of an impact

Our greatest problem this round was attacks - the lack of proper BCs left attacks to be run by HCs and whoever else was available, but I think we have solved this problem for next round. This round was largely used in getting fit for fight again, I expect us to perform better next round.

[what I've posted here are mostly my views, I guess others will disagree with me. The timeline is probably a bit ****ed too]

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Legator

omg kjel, sometimes your even more than just stupid.

Maybe they've teached that on highschool, I dunno, but when you want to discuss something, posting an insult or a one liner without explaining why really closes all doors for any discussion.

And I give you more credits for being someone telling his opinion and then explaining why so he could get a discussion going, rather then some troll who decided "ohh look, someone I don't like, let's flame him and act like a troll cause everyone else trolls and pple find it AWESOME!!".

So plz do share with me why you think I'm even more then just stupid ...

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Angels did well considering their size but considering what I feel they could have accomplished it's not amazing.

What could we have accomplished more then you expected, given that we are 35 members and at no point had any intentions to grow bigger? I'm just curious, that's all

[The_Fish]

LOL @ all the 'Angels' posting in this thread.

Stop wanking your own ego's. Everyone has said you've done a good job. But one round of doing well, and you are all talking like you have actually achieved something. You did nothing to affect the outcome of the round. You made little noise. You had no big wars. Come back next round after achieving something, unless you decide not to play, which will always give you something to hide behind.

[Buddah]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Ya it is rather obvious tbh. There hasn't been an ND saying a single bad thing about 1up (is there a bad thing about them?) or a 1up saying a single bad thing about ND ....

Lokken, you tried to be as objective as possible, but still from your rather ND biassed approach (which is normal). I for one would claim the nap with 1up was a VERY stupid decision, but that's just my oppinion and it's based on my biassed approach.

I think an alliance that managed to get top3 or even top5 has performed decently, period. I'm sure EVERY alliance could have done certain things better, and yes, that includes 1up. They are not gods either, they're just the best atm.

(im x-nd)i dont like they way 1up won, i dont like they way lch ended second, i dont like they way nd ended third, i like the way hr ended 4th, i still dont have that high thought about wp, but they are rising.

absolute vsn mistu were dissapointments. tof was a shock, angles was not a big suprise and one of the 2 alliances in top10 that i respect most along with hr.

i also claim the nap with 1up was stupid.

[The_Fish]

And you're also wrong, too, Buddah

[Almeida]

Fish, where do you take all the wisdom from to judge who is right or wrong? u think u are the smartest guy when it comes down to politics and gameplay but imo u are more a n00b than leet at those issues.

about the topic: i agree pretty much with Buddahs judgment.

[The_Fish]

To be honest with you, I'm a naturally arrogant person. Plus I'm yet to ever say anything that has come to bite me on the arse. I've never made any bad calls. So my confidence has never been knocked.

It's clearly noobish to have expected ND to turn on 1up. Had we succeeded and beaten them, then everyone would have then turned on ND. And then LCH would have won. And thats just plain wrong.

[jerome]

What the hell is it these days with such frequent smacks of irony