So question to exilition...

[PureviL]

You should look beyond defending once when you look at 'playing for another allience'

if they attack and defend with their own allience for their own and their allience ranking on a regular basis they aren't support planets. Id you want to delete them for helping their friends/allies whoever.. sure. Pa has always been about politics and alliences working together.

This is a game, not some countries law. The MH should aid to the succes of this game by making it more fair, by applying the rules in a fair and unbiased manner. If you want to ruin weeks of work from honest and decent players by acting like a pendantic lawyer ignoring the idiocy of the rule and the circumstances then you are IMO either biased or out to ruin this round/game.

[Agerus]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Cheating/EULA breaking/support planets aside I think it shows perfectly the mentality of eXilition. So far we haven't seen eXilition playing a round without the need to have a minimum of 3/4 alliances playing lapdog. I'd like to congratulate everyone telling us how fantastic eXilition are as long as they have a bunch of groupies taking it up the ass on thier behalf.

you can also see it from another point of view, ND avoided big wars for quite a while. Who do you think they hit then? May be those alliances who are teaming up against them now? Fair move I would say.

[Goodfellah]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Cheating/EULA breaking/support planets aside I think it shows perfectly the mentality of eXilition. So far we haven't seen eXilition playing a round without the need to have a minimum of 3/4 alliances playing lapdog. I'd like to congratulate everyone telling us how fantastic eXilition are as long as they have a bunch of groupies taking it up the ass on thier behalf.

ow, and 1up always did it solo right...

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Goodfellah

ow, and 1up always did it solo right...

No, but mazz didn't claim that either. I think the most allies 1up has dealt with at once was 3-4 in round 13, when EX's block started out as EX, LCH, ToT and VsN, and extended NAPs to nos and Angels.

[LocknLoad]

Originally Posted by Banned

No, but mazz didn't claim that either. I think the most allies 1up has dealt with at once was 3-4 in round 13, when EX's block started out as EX, LCH, ToT and VsN, and extended NAPs to nos and Angels.

Strange I seem to remember getting hit several times by VsN in round 13.

[Goodfellah]

r13 - nd-sin-tof-nos
r12 - nd-nos-tof

last round where there was utterly no need for blocks they napped reunion, not to mention the numberous planetnaps, so 1up should not talk about exil about napping as they have done( are doing) the same

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Goodfellah

r13 - nd-sin-tof-nos
r12 - nd-nos-tof

last round where there was utterly no need for blocks they napped reunion, not to mention the numberous planetnaps, so 1up should not talk about exil about napping as they have done( are doing) the same

Wether there was a nap with ToF or not can be discussed

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Goodfellah

r13 - nd-sin-tof-nos
r12 - nd-nos-tof

last round where there was utterly no need for blocks they napped reunion, not to mention the numberous planetnaps, so 1up should not talk about exil about napping as they have done( are doing) the same

1up nap'd reunion whilst they were outside of the top5 in a bid to curb the growing number of alliances targetting us at once. At that time, rightly so, multiple alliances were hitting 1up in a bid to even up the playing field. 1up and an alliance outside the top 5 can never be called a 'block' particularly as there was not a single bit of attack coordination with reunion during the whole round we just didn't hit them and they didn't hit us.

And for the love of God will someone please take the time to read what I'm saying. I have no once said "OMG EXIL ARE EVUL BLOCKING ****S". I'm simply pointing out that they haven't managed to play a round without having 4 or more alliances helping them along so any claim of "WE PWNED J00" or other such shit is totally null and void.

And in addition:

R13 - NoS napped eXil and ToF were utterly ****ing useless from day 1. That was a counter block to one created by eX so I fail to see what you're getting at.

R12 - 1up stated from the off that we weren't in it to win it and we were trying to help ND win. How can we help someone win without being allied to them?

It's comical having to come up with an answer to someone who's alliance isn't even capable of not hitting it's allies. Trust me when I say having any kind of political dealing with ToF was about the same as staying neutral to them but with a damn sight more moaning.

* Is this also you being bitter about your request for an alliance between ToF and 1up being turned down at the beginning of the round? Care to tell everyone why I told ToF no?

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Agerus

you can also see it from another point of view, ND avoided big wars for quite a while. Who do you think they hit then? May be those alliances who are teaming up against them now? Fair move I would say.

I'm not sure what it's even getting at but I'll reply to what I think you're saying.

Of course ND are hitting eX. Who else would they hit? The alliances in 3/4/5 who are posing no threat to them currently or the one breathing down thier necks?

These alliances were teaming long before ND came into the equation.

[Goodfellah]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

And for the love of God will someone please take the time to read what I'm saying. I have no once said "OMG EXIL ARE EVUL BLOCKING ****S". I'm simply pointing out that they haven't managed to play a round without having 4 or more alliances helping them along so any claim of "WE PWNED J00" or other such shit is totally null and void.

And in addition:

R13 - NoS napped eXil and ToF were utterly ****ing useless from day 1. That was a counter block to one created by eX so I fail to see what you're getting at.

R12 - 1up stated from the off that we weren't in it to win it and we were trying to help ND win. How can we help someone win without being allied to them?

It's comical having to come up with an answer to someone who's alliance isn't even capable of not hitting it's allies. Trust me when I say having any kind of political dealing with ToF was about the same as staying neutral to them but with a damn sight more moaning.

yet u complain about them blocking, while u did the same thing everyround u played ... And
where are the 'JOO GOT PWNED BY EXIL' posts ? I dont think i have seen one yet ? all i see is trolls starting to point out that exil cheated yet again. "oh we lost, lets just say they cheated then we arent so imbaresed afterwords".... GG ;-)

why did we need to care about not hitting the same block? u did nothing to aid us in any way, so dont point the blaim at us. in r13 1up proved to be uttetly useless aswell not being able to cope with an alliance of their skill (or above their skills) just like this round.

[JonnyBGood]

(f) Support Accounts are accounts which are dedicated to undertaking specific
and repeated actions which result in an unfair benefit for a
planet/organisation, where an organisation is defined as an alliance or galaxy.

Quite obviously this doesn't break the rules as these actions have so far not been repeated. As others have said the problem here is that this goes against the spirit of the rule. Unfortunately the rule is confusing and meaningless, what constitutes repeated, what's an unfair benefit, what sort of specific actions. You can interpret that rule so that it bans multiple alliances from fleet-catching a planet (although only after a certain number of times). This whole situation could have been dealt with far easier if the universe eta for defence was moved up by one tick.

[Goodfellah]

also, got to love neg reps about this =D

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Goodfellah

yet u complain about them blocking, while u did the same thing everyround u played ... And
where are the 'JOO GOT PWNED BY EXIL' posts ? I dont think i have seen one yet ? all i see is trolls starting to point out that exil cheated yet again. "oh we lost, lets just say they cheated then we arent so imbaresed afterwords".... GG ;-)

why did we need to care about not hitting the same block? u did nothing to aid us in any way, so dont point the blaim at us. in r13 1up proved to be uttetly useless aswell not being able to cope with an alliance of their skill (or above their skills) just like this round.

How can you claim 1up in round 13 has "proven to be utterly useless as well as not being able to cope with an alliance of their skill" when a) 1up still finished in front of ToF and b) 1up never played against an alliance but against a block which was set in stone before ticks started?

[Goodfellah]

Originally Posted by Heartless

How can you claim 1up in round 13 has "proven to be utterly useless as well as not being able to cope with an alliance of their skill" when a) 1up still finished in front of ToF and b) 1up never played against an alliance but against a block which was set in stone before ticks started?

waw, you ended before us!!! thats really an accomplishement for 1up now isnt it, gee you suprised me there....

1up had a block, but failed to keep its block intact, yeah yeah u can say all what u want about us hitting u with friendly fire and nos napping the other block. but it was becoz the 1up block was just lost from the start

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Goodfellah

yet u complain about them blocking, while u did the same thing everyround u played ... And
where are the 'JOO GOT PWNED BY EXIL' posts ? I dont think i have seen one yet ? all i see is trolls starting to point out that exil cheated yet again. "oh we lost, lets just say they cheated then we arent so imbaresed afterwords".... GG ;-)

Once again. I'm not complaining about blocking. I'm merely stating that they haven't managed a round without 4 or more support alliances. I simply cannot make what I'm saying any clearer than that.

I also suggest you read every post by Maximillian and 75% of SkyHeads posts to nullify the latter part of what I quoted. I'd also show you the copious number of neg reps I get saying "you are just whining because we owned you twice". Again, by itsself it's no big deal. But it's also a load of cobblers.

Originally Posted by Goodfellah

why did we need to care about not hitting the same block? u did nothing to aid us in any way, so dont point the blaim at us. in r13 1up proved to be uttetly useless aswell not being able to cope with an alliance of their skill (or above their skills) just like this round.

It's not hitting the other block that was the issue, it's hitting your own that you did on a vastly regular basis.

1up didn't cope with the combined skill level of eX, LCH, vsn, vgn + whatever. I'll admit that forever and day. We weren't good enough to beat them and we finished in 8th because of it. The day eX manage to win a round without having 4 or more alliances helping them is the day I'll admit they're better than X (whomever it might be). Until then they just played on the best side.

It's amusing how fickle your loyalties are too. Through R12 and R13 you did nothing but praise 1up and I definately remember several conversations in PM with you about how all the rest were ****s and 1up were the only ones treating you with respect and at the beginning of this round ToF approached 1up for an alliance. Intermingled with all this were your own alliances command claims in various channels about "cheating ex bastards". Interestingly now you're in thier back pocket and flacking them they're suddenly a more skilled alliance.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Goodfellah

waw, you ended before us!!! thats really an accomplishement for 1up now isnt it, gee you suprised me there....

1up had a block, but failed to keep its block intact, yeah yeah u can say all what u want about us hitting u with friendly fire and nos napping the other block. but it was becoz the 1up block was just lost from the start

Considering that we more or less fought on our own due to the failed block I think that is quite an achievement - ToF would have been bashed out of the top 20 alliance ranking if they'd have had half the incoming we had that round.

And you of course mean that the 1up block was just lost from the start since your alliance has proven to be utterly useless and not being able to cope with alliances of skill since ToF couldn't stick to incredibly simple agreements?

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Goodfellah

waw, you ended before us!!! thats really an accomplishement for 1up now isnt it, gee you suprised me there....

1up had a block, but failed to keep its block intact, yeah yeah u can say all what u want about us hitting u with friendly fire and nos napping the other block. but it was becoz the 1up block was just lost from the start

So you started by blaming your ineptitude on a badly written arbiter and now you're moving it onto the excuse that you thought the round was lost before ticks started. Quality.

You've effectively just told everyone how well 1up and ND did. We had ToF; the PA equivalent of a chocolate fireguard and NoS; the only block partners to NAP the enemy. So 2 against the eXil block did us pretty proud. It's a backhanded compliment but I'll happily accept it.

[Goodfellah]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

It's amusing how fickle your loyalties are too. Through R12 and R13 you did nothing but praise 1up and I definately remember several conversations in PM with you about how all the rest were ****s and 1up were the only ones treating you with respect and at the beginning of this round ToF approached 1up for an alliance. Intermingled with all this were your own alliances command claims in various channels about "cheating ex bastards". Interestingly now you're in thier back pocket and flacking them they're suddenly a more skilled alliance.

you wont see tof as flack for exil coz atm we have no links with any of the top 5 alliances and yes in r12-13 i had a lot of respect for 1up, i even had it in the beginning of r14. But when my top members got a msg last round saying ' get a planet nap with 1up or get bashed to death' ofcourse i will loose my respect for such an alliance. also the fact u stagnated the last round by upholding ur nap with reunion just to insure ur alliances victory. Also we didnt say cheating ex bastards we just said ex bastards.

[Sir Mordred]

Originally Posted by Ska

List for defenders for an exilition (fc nonetheless) planet in cluster one. I normally don't get into politics on AD and I have quite a few friends in ex, but I do find this rather rediculous:

Defending 1:X:3

[...]

Anyone care to explain? Seems rather against EULA as well. OOGOOA.

Coords are available upon request ofc.

in how far is that against the User Agreement?
iirc, accounts that are *dedicated* to actions that provide an unfair benefit to someone are banned (please refer to the user agreement to see the details).
so, where is the proof that the listed planets are dedicated to that purpose? OOGOOA maybe a reason for an investigation, but is definately no proof of cheating.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Goodfellah

you wont see tof as flack for exil coz atm we have no links with any of the top 5 alliances and yes in r12-13 i had a lot of respect for 1up, i even had it in the beginning of r14. But when my top members got a msg last round saying ' get a planet nap with 1up or get bashed to death' of course i will loose my respect for such an alliance.

Then why did you request to ally with us at the beginning of this round? Selling yourselves out for a bit less incoming?

Originally Posted by Goodfellah

also the fact u stagnated the last round by upholding ur nap with reunion just to insure ur alliances victory.

I think most people will admit we didn't need to keep the nap with reunion to win. We maintained it out of keeping our word when breaking it would've served no purpose.

Originally Posted by Goodfellah

Also we didnt say cheating ex bastards we just said ex bastards.

Fair enough. We'll leave that one here but both you and I know thats just plain bullshit.

[Goodfellah]

i handle all politics for tof and i certainly did not have any talks with 1up.
about this being bullshit ? yes this entire thread and the rule from eula are bullshit

[Gate]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

You've effectively just told everyone how well 1up and ND did. We had ToF; the PA equivalent of a chocolate fireguard and NoS; the only block partners to NAP the enemy. So 2 against the eXil block did us pretty proud. It's a backhanded compliment but I'll happily accept it.

And SiN.

SiN were/are lovely. Their name is somewhat ironic though, considering their size.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Gate

And SiN.

SiN were/are lovely. Their name is somewhat ironic though, considering their size.

Yes but didn't they ultimately merge with ND? If so, thats why they weren't mentioned specifically. If not, sorry, I'm getting rouds mixed up.

[lizardking]

This thread isn't even worth 50cents tbh.

In all honesty how on earth any1 can bother to complain about alliances depthing cooperation beyond offensive level. Not like it's teh first time it has happened, and certainly shouldn't be the last as long as the game mechanics allow it. If there r multible alliances targeting 1 planet, in all fairness that planet should be allowed to gather defence from multible sources. Any rule to forbid that is just non-sense, and afaik there's no such rule in effect besides the 1 to forbid use of "support" planets. This case however isn't about support planets, it's about cooperation between alliances. Nothing we haven't seen before...

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by lizardking

This thread isn't even worth 50cents tbh.

In all honesty how on earth any1 can bother to complain about alliances depthing cooperation beyond offensive level. Not like it's teh first time it has happened, and certainly shouldn't be the last as long as the game mechanics allow it. If there r multible alliances targeting 1 planet, in all fairness that planet should be allowed to gather defence from multible sources. Any rule to forbid that is just non-sense, and afaik there's no such rule in effect besides the 1 to forbid use of "support" planets. This case however isn't about support planets, it's about cooperation between alliances. Nothing we haven't seen before...

It was a single alliance running the fleetcatch as far as I know.

[Proxi]

Originally Posted by lizardking

This thread isn't even worth 50cents tbh.

In all honesty how on earth any1 can bother to complain about alliances depthing cooperation beyond offensive level. Not like it's teh first time it has happened, and certainly shouldn't be the last as long as the game mechanics allow it. If there r multible alliances targeting 1 planet, in all fairness that planet should be allowed to gather defence from multible sources. Any rule to forbid that is just non-sense, and afaik there's no such rule in effect besides the 1 to forbid use of "support" planets. This case however isn't about support planets, it's about cooperation between alliances. Nothing we haven't seen before...

What seems to be the thing annoying people is that smaller alliances are being USED. It has nothing to do with simply defending someone in another alliance, thats a load of rubbish.

[lizardking]

Heh alright. Even so it's not against morale nor ethics or even rules. Pointless flamefest all around.

[Proxi]

I agree, as long as the defence is being reciprocated by exil towards the smaller alliances then there is absolutely no problem with this at all.

[lizardking]

Originally Posted by veX

What seems to be the thing annoying people is that smaller alliances are being USED. It has nothing to do with simply defending someone in another alliance, thats a load of rubbish.

How they chose to use fleets is their business, alone. I think even the smaller alliances deserve a bit more credit than they've been handed out here.

[Squidly]

Originally Posted by RedCrab

Now, now, did we not agree that individual players used those support planets in most top alliances rather than exilition as an alliance used them. Correct me if I'm wrong. And come on, scanners sending defence is hardly cheating, lol :P

Yeah. 2500+ vipers each is definitely a non-factor.

{Well, sad as this may sound, 2500 vipers is more fleet worth than my whole fleet right now, so I guess I can't really comment )

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by lizardking

How they chose to use fleets is their business, alone. I think even the smaller alliances deserve a bit more credit than they've been handed out here.

If anyone vaguely thought eX were reciprocating then I don't think it would be such an issue but we all know damn well this isn't the case. These alliances are performing the actions they are under the sole intent of assisting eX to get to #1.

[Proxi]

I know ex arent reciprocating. Maybe I was trying to be too subtle here

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by veX

I know ex arent reciprocating. Maybe I was trying to be too subtle here

Sublety just doesn't pay on AD

[lizardking]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

If anyone vaguely thought eX were reciprocating then I don't think it would be such an issue but we all know damn well this isn't the case. These alliances are performing the actions they are under the sole intent of assisting eX to get to #1.

Well I suppose f.ex. if angels decides not to let eXilition take the round (while aiding cause for ND) it only balances the fight and makes it more interesting if sum1 else choses the opposite. And no im not aware of their reasoning when chosing sides. I wouldn't call any of those alliances eXil muppets any less I'd call Angels ND muppets, if u catch my drift.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by lizardking

Well I suppose f.ex. if angels decides not to let eXilition take the round (while aiding cause for ND) it only balances the fight and makes it more interesting if sum1 else choses the opposite. And no im not aware of their reasoning when chosing sides. I wouldn't call any of those alliances eXil muppets any less I'd call Angels ND muppets, if u catch my drift.

I think that was more in pretest to what they considered a bullshit targetting policy than out of altruism towards ND. It was more a case of "you spoiled ours so we'll spoil yours" rather than "we're not even trying to do anything for ourselves, we're going to put our fleets at the disposal of ND to ensure they win the round".

Thats the difference that you're missing. Angels have out and out tried to win the round and have finally decided (this is a guess) that they'd much rather ND won than you whereas the alliances kissing eX's ass have made no attempt to do anything other than eX's dirty work.

[lizardking]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Thats the difference that you're missing. Angels have out and out tried to win the round and have finally decided (this is a guess) that they'd much rather ND won than you whereas the alliances kissing eX's ass have made no attempt to do anything other than eX's dirty work.

I fail to c how it's Angels' exclusive rights to have an input on deciding the winner.

Wether there is 1 or more winners resulting after blockwar is a matter of wiev ofc.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by lizardking

I fail to c how it's Angels' exclusive rights to have an input on deciding the winner.

Pardon? You mean you don't think they have the right to target whomever they want? Particularly when no other alliance in game has been more hostile towards them. Or are you trying to class the alliances helping eX in the same way as Angels?

Originally Posted by lizardking

Wether there is 1 or more winners resulting after blockwar is a matter of wiev ofc.

No it isn't. There is one winner. It's the one who's name is at the top of the list after the last tick. The alliances helping eX cannot make any claim to being winners (which is my best guess at what you're insinuating there). They are simply players who have done nothing more than pay 5 quid each to help another alliance win at the cost of any sort of independance. They have effectively only played the round for eX and are nothing more than wings of eX with a higher eta.

[Legator]

Originally Posted by Goodfellah

last round where there was utterly no need for blocks they napped reunion, not to mention the numberous planetnaps, so 1up should not talk about exil about napping as they have done( are doing) the same

Fellah my friend, we napped 1up while we had 35 members and were like #10 or #11.

you cant really call that a block....

[Legator]

Originally Posted by Goodfellah

you wont see tof as flack for exil coz atm we have no links with any of the top 5 alliances and yes in r12-13 i had a lot of respect for 1up, i even had it in the beginning of r14. But when my top members got a msg last round saying ' get a planet nap with 1up or get bashed to death' ofcourse i will loose my respect for such an alliance. also the fact u stagnated the last round by upholding ur nap with reunion just to insure ur alliances victory. Also we didnt say cheating ex bastards we just said ex bastards.

heh

if you can blame anyone for upholding the nap then it is reunion and not 1up....

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by HK

1up is a wing of ND? There are no blocks in this round, just alliances targetting other alliances. I could say that 1up played the first part of the round for ND, but you played for yourself right? Stop insulting smaller alliances, it's not nice.

How do you get 1up being a wing of ND? Please explain because that has absolutely baffled me.

Of course there are blocks. eX have several smaller alliances hitting people hostile to them. These alliances aren't in these wars because they've been targetted, they are doing it purely for eX gain.

How did 1up play the first part of the round for ND? Did we encourage the targetting of us by several alliances to draw fire from ND in the hope thaty the end of our round would mean the beginning of thiers? Thats just about the most outrageously irrelevent statement I've ever seen anyone make. Have you been reading 'Propoganda for Dummies (TM)'?

I'm not insulting them, I'm expressing disappointment in having so little will to be pawns in someone else game. These are good alliances who have sold themselves out for the greater good of someone who will never care or reciprocate.

[lizardking]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

Pardon? You mean you don't think they have the right to target whomever they want? Particularly when no other alliance in game has been more hostile towards them. Or are you trying to class the alliances helping eX in the same way as Angels?

I only said it's a 2way street.

No it isn't. There is one winner. It's the one who's name is at the top of the list after the last tick. The alliances helping eX cannot make any claim to being winners (which is my best guess at what you're insinuating there). They are simply players who have done nothing more than pay 5 quid each to help another alliance win at the cost of any sort of independance. They have effectively only played the round for eX and are nothing more than wings of eX with a higher eta.

If that's the 1up wiev of handing credit to it's allies after a winning round it's more like a miracle there's any 1up minded ppl left outside 1up. Not all alliances aim to win in the begin with, sum chose to sit still roiding randomly day after day, while others get the thrill from warfare. Maybe that's what we r talking about here, or maybe not. Don't act like u know everything when u got no clue about agendas/goals other than ur own.

[The_Fish]

liz, mazzelaar never tried to take anything away from shit alliance achievements, such as Subh successfully managing to be puppets. But you can't call them winners.

The only winners of this round will be the alliance at rank 1 when the last tick happens.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by lizardking

I only said it's a 2way street.

Again - what are you saying? Angels and the people helping eX are in no way comparible whatsoever.

Originally Posted by lizardking

If that's the 1up wiev of handing credit to it's allies after a winning round it's more like a miracle there's any 1up minded ppl left outside 1up. Not all alliances aim to win in the begin with, sum chose to sit still roiding randomly day after day, while others get the thrill from warfare. Maybe that's what we r talking about here, or maybe not. Don't act like u know everything when u got no clue about agendas/goals other than ur own.

I'm all for giving credit where it's due. ND have always been superb alliances who have pulled thier weight and taken thier incoming and tried to do as well as they possibly could. They have, however, not set out from tick 1 to help any other alliance win and to keep attacking an already beaten alliance just to keep them pegged back from hitting thier ally. They have always had thier own agenda albeit with shared goals. This isn't the case with eX's flak. They have consistently only performed actions that have benfitted eX. Attacking to draw def, defending eX, attacking poor ratio targets just to keep the incoming on eX down. These aren't the acts of alliances with an agenda for themselves.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

liz, mazzelaar never tried to take anything away from shit alliance achievements, such as Subh successfully managing to be puppets. But you can't call them winners.

The only winners of this round will be the alliance at rank 1 when the last tick happens.

Subh did try to sort out the things out with ND... after hitting a few of their members in a standard gal raid. Nope ND decided to hit Subh on an ally level... I seem to recall key members in ND replys/PMs thinking their would be little or no reprisals. Not On my watch m8 . Before exil campaigned hitting ND still was focusing on 1up/other allys at that point. So When the oppourtunity to hit ND arised we took it.

If exil wins the round then good on them... As for subh our aim was to finish as a top 10 ally so far so good.

[Forest]

Surely what it all comes down to is this...

Anyone can win in a block war situation, and I would think nearly all top alliances have been in a winning block.

But it takes real skill to win alone, and as far as I see, certain alliances are too ingrained in the way of 'the other game'. Only one alliance can claim that.

I would even go as far as saying that certain alliances actions in unfluid politics, and big pre-round blocks, have set pa back as much as 1 year, in actual playability and skill.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

liz, mazzelaar never tried to take anything away from shit alliance achievements, such as Subh successfully managing to be puppets. But you can't call them winners.

The only winners of this round will be the alliance at rank 1 when the last tick happens.

I seem to recall after r13, or perhaps slightly later, certain people (mazz is the only one I definitely remember) saying that exilition's number one finish did not prove them to be the better alliance and that it was just their block that had won. Similarly one would have to say this round that the exilition block is the round winner from that perspective. One wouldn't say that subh or vgn have proved themselves to be the best alliance in the game. Rather it is similar to many previous rounds, say r7 with ToT and RaH ending up on the winning side. Obviously fury that round was the "best" alliance but to say ToT and RaH weren't involved in the winning of that round is to be too narrow-minded in how you analyze the game.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by buddies

Subh did try to sort out the things out with ND... after hitting a few of their members in a standard gal raid. Nope ND decided to hit Subh on an ally level... I seem to recall key members in ND replys/PMs thinking their would be little or no reprisals. Not On my watch m8 . Before exil campaigned hitting ND still was focusing on 1up/other allys at that point. So When the oppourtunity to hit ND arised we took it.

If exil wins the round then good on them... As for subh our aim was to finish as a top 10 ally so far so good.

Let's cut the bullshit.

You were always going to side with eXilition over NewDawn. You were actively hitting ND for a week or so. We then had a night off from hitting Angels at the time. We were clearly going to twat you back for 2 reasons; attacking us, and being puppets. Of course we expected reprisals, we expected you to attack us when eXilition did. Don't try to claim any moral highground, you have none.

[noah02]

Doesnt surprise me in the slightest tbh exil will doing anything to be number 1 would be to embarrasing not to win the round cheating or not but hey as long as they get warnings for first time offences or first time caught then they will always do things there way.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by noah02

Doesnt surprise me in the slightest tbh exil will doing anything to be number 1 would be to embarrasing not to win the round cheating or not but hey as long as they get warnings for first time offences or first time caught then they will always do things there way.

Actually you have hit the nail on the head here.

Exi will do anything, even if it harms the game. Cheating accusations aside, lets look at politics.

Whilst Sid/Angels/ND(I would add in lch probably at this point), did what they could to win whilst keeping fluid politics, exi were busy making sure they had lots of little alliances doing what they could to make sure exi win.

Is it good for the game? Almost certainly not.

So what happens now.

Either Exi sit out the next round, leaving lots of smaller alliances alone, with lots of bigger alliances out looking for revenge, or exi play the next round, leaving the smaller alliances no option but to ally exi in an attempt not to get cnuted silly.

Either way, the game has been screwed over.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I seem to recall after r13, or perhaps slightly later, certain people (mazz is the only one I definitely remember) saying that exilition's number one finish did not prove them to be the better alliance and that it was just their block that had won. Similarly one would have to say this round that the exilition block is the round winner from that perspective. One wouldn't say that subh or vgn have proved themselves to be the best alliance in the game. Rather it is similar to many previous rounds, say r7 with ToT and RaH ending up on the winning side. Obviously fury that round was the "best" alliance but to say ToT and RaH weren't involved in the winning of that round is to be too narrow-minded in how you analyze the game.

I think I was more making the point that we know eX are a good alliance but we will never know how good due to never seeing them without a bunch of other smaller [and perhaps weaker] alliances holding thier hands and doing a significant portion of the dirty work for them. I may be forgetting the crux of my posts you remember but I think it was more aimed at eX being better than 1up or Angels, or LCH etc etc in terms of a one on one. They were undoubtedly the best alliance in the arena at the time as they obviously played thier political hands more astutely than others at the time.

And yes, vgn, subh, hr etc etc have no doubt been involved in winning a round but by no means does this mean they have earnt the right to be called winners, in my opinion.