Alliances playing r16

[The_Fish]

Apology accepted

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'd be very dubious of whether this is the case this round. As furball outlined VGN target picking frequently occurred prior to exilition's and without argumentative consultation. I'd say it was much closer to a happy coincidence of circumstances with regards to targets [not] chosen. I really don't see how vgn or subh could be said to be losing out here. Perhaps exilition are gaining more here but I'd say vgn/subh are gaining more in the exchange of tactical expertise area I mentioned earlier.

Looking back on subh's attack strategy, We did do alot of fakes designed to soak up as much def as possible without it being dropped due to it being uncoverable. (made sure they werent Fleet scanable) that would give the impression subh did attack first As we would launch 3-4 ticks before the main attack. We did "counter def" on a limited basis, something to work on. The one thing subh didnt do was fleetcatches on a big scale... One thing exil does have in abundance is Fleetcatch passmasters (Waves to skyhead and pglee) and that was one thing we didnt take advantage of was their expertise in this field.

Wasted oppourtunity there

[lokken]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

As I said, it's difficult to credit your alliance for the motivation provided by something like that. Obviously you have the definite plus factor in your favour that your alliance didn't just collapse, however beyond this aspect, which is not all that rare, it's very much an external stimulant.

Well, the fact that we seemed to go along like men possessed and doing things that we didn't think we could do before. I mean FFS, I got my planet to #1, which is definitely playing above myself and other ND players were getting rankings they never thought they could get. As an example, Nef (my galaxy mate) before round 14 had never achieved a top 100 planet, he was simply a very very solid defender who worked very hard for his alliance who I certainly wouldn't describe as "aggressive" - he finished just outside the top50. The fact is we didn't "just get on with it", we went beyond limits we never thought possible.

This is a very unanalytical approach to the situation. One could equally offer the rather trite line that "it's better to use others to assist you than expend all the energy yourself". You can't really offer sensible short summations of the situation like that. For example like it or not but ND's political strategy was reliant on someone else's success. It depended on 1up and angels continuing to fight. If that hadn't happened then it's a fairly safe bet that (precluding other extreme political developments) ND would not have come so close to winning the round or spending a significant amount of time at number one in the alliance rankings. Any political stance is pretty much inherently reliant on what others do. Unless you're talking about some insane situation where you're effectively wasting your alliance to help someone else I wouldn't really say you've lost control of your alliance's destinty. VGN/subh's analysis of the situation was spot on, more so than ND's (of course these were in part self-fulfilling prophecies from both perspectives).

How are we relying on anything. We were playing on the nailed on certainty that 1up and Exilition were going to go at each other big time - "fairly safe" is a big understatement, because they hate the backs off each other. To block in general is gambling on which one of two horses is successful. Even if ND is reliant, relative to VGN/Subh it's reliance is so negligibly small you might as well say it doesn't exist. Blocking pins your flag to one side, locks you into conflict and potentially leaves you open to attacks out of sheer spite in that round and the future (see ND round 12 and 13, see Reunion round 14). To suggest that their analysis of politics is better than ours is plain moronic considering we're the slightly above average alliance that nearly won and are in two minds whether we overperformed or not, while they're the average alliances who are happy with a bog average ranking for alliances of their ability. When you compare the alliances above and below each of the respective alliances, we're above alliances that are a good deal better than us - VGN and subh aren't.

ND's problem was it's own strength more than anything else dear. If VGN/subh want to keep analysing how to be in other people's pockets, they can analyse all they want for all I care. They're letting themselves be easy pickings for a bigger alliance's benefit if they want to persist. If people choose to attack you in a block situation, you are often stuck with it. When you have room to manoevre you can tack and tack and tack to navigate your way through the universe.

I'd be very dubious of whether this is the case this round. As furball outlined VGN target picking frequently occurred prior to exilition's and without argumentative consultation. I'd say it was much closer to a happy coincidence of circumstances with regards to targets [not] chosen. I really don't see how vgn or subh could be said to be losing out here. Perhaps exilition are gaining more here but I'd say vgn/subh are gaining more in the exchange of tactical expertise area I mentioned earlier.

So what are they gaining in terms of tactical expertise if there's no coordination, bar keeping exilition off the grass? With consultation, exilition in a war scenario are going to be working hand over fist to make sure that they're banking up the XP to win the round, even if it doesn't appear that way. I can guarantee you that alliances like VGN and subh would benefit a lot more by taking each other on and gaining real war experience rather than being on the periphery of a conflict that's out of their league.

It's only either "meh" or "exceptional" with you deus guys .

So I have standards. I've played this game in command at every level, so I think I have a pretty good idea of what a performance beyond your own means is.

If people don't like my standards, I'm pretty uncompromising on AD and they can go cry about it somewhere for all I care.

I'll repeat again - unless you are what I term a "strike" alliance, straight blocking without swapping sides or stabbing the mother alliance in the back, you're on a fast track to mediocrity.

[Rikard]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

The others I just about agree with, but not this point.

You didn't know how good or badly we would stand up against the onslaught from eXilition. No-one knew, not even us.

We actually overestimated the war against ND. I personally thought we had started the way against ND a couple of days to late and i expected we wouldnt pass ND till a day before the end of the round or later.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by lokken

Well, the fact that we seemed to go along like men possessed and doing things that we didn't think we could do before. I mean FFS, I got my planet to #1, which is definitely playing above myself and other ND players were getting rankings they never thought they could get. As an example, Nef (my galaxy mate) before round 14 had never achieved a top 100 planet, he was simply a very very solid defender who worked very hard for his alliance who I certainly wouldn't describe as "aggressive" - he finished just outside the top50. The fact is we didn't "just get on with it", we went beyond limits we never thought possible.

I never said you "just got on with it" so I don't know why you phrased it like that. I said that if the reasons for ND performing so well is that some ship-jumping twat abandoned you and took all your intel with him, which you expressly stated, then it's not something you or the alliance can take that much credit for.

How are we relying on anything. We were playing on the nailed on certainty that 1up and Exilition were going to go at each other big time - "fairly safe" is a big understatement, because they hate the backs off each other. To block in general is gambling on which one of two horses is successful. Even if ND is reliant, relative to VGN/Subh it's reliance is so negligibly small you might as well say it doesn't exist. Blocking pins your flag to one side, locks you into conflict and potentially leaves you open to attacks out of sheer spite in that round and the future (see ND round 12 and 13, see Reunion round 14). To suggest that their analysis of politics is better than ours is plain moronic considering we're the slightly above average alliance that nearly won and are in two minds whether we overperformed or not, while they're the average alliances who are happy with a bog average ranking for alliances of their ability. When you compare the alliances above and below each of the respective alliances, we're above alliances that are a good deal better than us - VGN and subh aren't.

I'm not saying their rankings are better (relatively speaking) I'm saying their recognition of political reality was better. ND saw the"nailed on certainty" that 1up and eX were going to go at each other hammer and tongs and thought they could exploit this in order to gain a win. To block is only ever gambling due to lack of information. VGN and Subh had more conservative goals but they accomplished them. I'd say their analysis was better but their gamble was smaller. Gambling for smaller alliances, especially new ones like Subh can break them though. This was not a danger that ND realistically faced. This round has been very much a formative experience for different reasons for both alliances. As JD Rockefeller once said "nobody ever went broke making a profit". I'd be disappointed in both alliances if they went the same way next round but I very much understand why they went they way they did for r15.

ND's problem was it's own strength more than anything else dear. If VGN/subh want to keep analysing how to be in other people's pockets, they can analyse all they want for all I care. They're letting themselves be easy pickings for a bigger alliance's benefit if they want to persist. If people choose to attack you in a block situation, you are often stuck with it. When you have room to manoevre you can tack and tack and tack to navigate your way through the universe.

I wouldn't advise persisting down that route. I think it was a wise and beneficial choice this round. From the way next round is shaping up I don't think it would be the best choice for either alliance for a multitude of reasons, people's attitudes hardening due to two rounds of similar play, the way both alliances have evolved during this round, the lack of a comparable political situation as we head into r16.

So what are they gaining in terms of tactical expertise if there's no coordination, bar keeping exilition off the grass? With consultation, exilition in a war scenario are going to be working hand over fist to make sure that they're banking up the XP to win the round, even if it doesn't appear that way. I can guarantee you that alliances like VGN and subh would benefit a lot more by taking each other on and gaining real war experience rather than being on the periphery of a conflict that's out of their league.

It's not as black and white as you're making out here. There was consultation towards the end of the round, and there was always observation and from an inside perspective. While the absence of a formal structure may slightly hinder the distribution of information the quantities were not insurmountable to otherwise convey through more informal channels. That said vgn and subh would have gained through taking each other on this round but as we saw the few times alliances solely targetted each other further down the rankings they would have just gotten wallopped when they did so and their rankings would have almost certainly been lower. It's a balancing act.

So I have standards. I've played this game in command at every level, so I think I have a pretty good idea of what a performance beyond your own means is.

I would not disagree. I did not say they performed beyond their means though.

If people don't like my standards, I'm pretty uncompromising on AD and they can go cry about it somewhere for all I care.

And I wouldn't have it any other way :)

I'll repeat again - unless you are what I term a "strike" alliance, straight blocking without swapping sides or stabbing the mother alliance in the back, you're on a fast track to mediocrity.

If we're in the business of repeating right now then I'll say again that this is not what I expect to see from either side next round, and if they do take up a comparable role I'll retract all I've said so far word by word in reverse (which should put me right about in time for r16 I think).

[furball]

Originally Posted by lokken

How are we relying on anything. We were playing on the nailed on certainty that 1up and Exilition were going to go at each other big time - "fairly safe" is a big understatement, because they hate the backs off each other. To block in general is gambling on which one of two horses is successful. Even if ND is reliant, relative to VGN/Subh it's reliance is so negligibly small you might as well say it doesn't exist. Blocking pins your flag to one side, locks you into conflict and potentially leaves you open to attacks out of sheer spite in that round and the future (see ND round 12 and 13, see Reunion round 14). To suggest that their analysis of politics is better than ours is plain moronic considering we're the slightly above average alliance that nearly won and are in two minds whether we overperformed or not, while they're the average alliances who are happy with a bog average ranking for alliances of their ability. When you compare the alliances above and below each of the respective alliances, we're above alliances that are a good deal better than us - VGN and subh aren't.

What JBG was probably saying is that your opportunity to win the round (and analysis of how to do so) rode on eXil still battling 1up and Angels up to the last week of the round. If they won any sooner (as happened), then they were able to ride over you guys and gain colossal XP to win.

Of course eXil were going to be battling away for most of the round. We all knew that, it didn't take a genius. By the time that we NAPed eXil, we were confident that they were going to win the round in the end. That's analysis, and we were proven correct. ND's analysis still got them to where it should - and ND was always going to do best when it could roid away from the attentions of eXil et al.

As for us achieving "bog average ranking for alliances of their ability", you may have seen it coming earlier than most but I was explicitly referring to general expectations before the round even started. My point still stands that we were proven to be of said ability by re-achieving it after Round 14 - since in Round 14 the lower rankings were meaningless after so many alliance collapses.

Originally Posted by lokken

ND's problem was it's own strength more than anything else dear. If VGN/subh want to keep analysing how to be in other people's pockets, they can analyse all they want for all I care. They're letting themselves be easy pickings for a bigger alliance's benefit if they want to persist. If people choose to attack you in a block situation, you are often stuck with it. When you have room to manoevre you can tack and tack and tack to navigate your way through the universe.

We 'tacked' to where we wanted to be (going after the high XP roids while avoiding piggies), and stayed there all round since that was where the wind was. We expected that to be the case, and it was. When we NAPed eXilition, they had essentially broken 1up (who, all credit to them, were still fighting away), and Subh were on their side too (who would have been a major ally for 'the other side'). In case you bring it up - we had no relations with Subh all round.

Originally Posted by lokken

I can guarantee you that alliances like VGN and subh would benefit a lot more by taking each other on and gaining real war experience rather than being on the periphery of a conflict that's out of their league.

A war with Subh would have suited neither of us, and TGV would have simply taken advantage - much like ND taking advantage of the eXil/1up war. The experience would have been great - but you're the person who's been saying that ranking is the be-all and end-all of everything! By hitting Angels/ND/1up, we got massive XP gains.

When the round ended, people on AD couldn't stop talking about the effect that VGN and Subh had on the outcome of the round. I find it rather amusing that you now consider us "on the periphery" and that the conflict was "out of our league". That wasn't the heroic NewDawn's thinking in Round 14!

Originally Posted by lokken

If people don't like my standards, I'm pretty uncompromising on AD and they can go cry about it somewhere for all I care.

Fine by me - in fact I'd be rather disappointed if you abandoned your argument at this late stage.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

If we're in the business of repeating right now then I'll say again that this is not what I expect to see from either side next round, and if they do take up a comparable role I'll retract all I've said so far word by word in reverse (which should put me right about in time for r16 I think).

Rest assured that we won't be taking a similar approach in Round 16 - unless circumstances dictate .

[The_Mad_Keg]

Originally Posted by lokken

So what are they gaining in terms of tactical expertise if there's no coordination, bar keeping exilition off the grass? With consultation, exilition in a war scenario are going to be working hand over fist to make sure that they're banking up the XP to win the round, even if it doesn't appear that way. I can guarantee you that alliances like VGN and subh would benefit a lot more by taking each other on and gaining real war experience rather than being on the periphery of a conflict that's out of their league.

It seems part of the round has been forgotten to you, not only did Subh co-operate with Exilition but we did that aswell as engaging in a war with TGV, who at the time were several ranks above us and at the time with an extra round of experience over us. Who actually won the war is extremely vague as both alliances took heavy roid losses, sometimes both ended up in the red on certain days.

Also throughout the round we attacked normal gals unrelated to exilitions targets and busied ourselves with various fleetcatches, not as Paisley said to an exeptional level but there was some work going on in that area.

So all in all we both gained "easy roids" and XP from hitting with Exilition aswell as avoiding incs from them, we gained "real war experience" from fighting TGV and in the end we gained a top10 ranking we fought for and deserved. Yes we expected in that general region but at the start of the round where predictions and goals are made we believed VGN, ToF, TGV, xVx, Insomnia and HR could be in the mix with us and capable of beating us in ranks, as it was xVx and HR didnt produce a performance expected of them and both Insomnia and ToF had internal problems. Until their split ToF were right there with us. In the end we were the best of the middle alliances, alliances i believe are on an equal footing with us, so i think we gained well from the things we did this round and if the performance wasnt exeptional it was definately better than decent

[lokken]

Originally Posted by furball

What JBG was probably saying is that your opportunity to win the round (and analysis of how to do so) rode on eXil still battling 1up and Angels up to the last week of the round. If they won any sooner (as happened), then they were able to ride over you guys and gain colossal XP to win.

Of course eXil were going to be battling away for most of the round. We all knew that, it didn't take a genius. By the time that we NAPed eXil, we were confident that they were going to win the round in the end. That's analysis, and we were proven correct. ND's analysis still got them to where it should - and ND was always going to do best when it could roid away from the attentions of eXil et al.

So you're chastising us for taking out the blindly obvious massively beneficial strategy. You're a treasure you are (and as such, should be buried on an island, lol). ND isn't an alliance that can win games by itself, hence you have to budget for a grandstand finish, as simply there's no other way. Either way, we're guaranteed a massively inflated rank for our ability.

As for us achieving "bog average ranking for alliances of their ability", you may have seen it coming earlier than most but I was explicitly referring to general expectations before the round even started. My point still stands that we were proven to be of said ability by re-achieving it after Round 14 - since in Round 14 the lower rankings were meaningless after so many alliance collapses.

Who's expectations? If we look at basic comparisons of alliances, and track record you'ld have VGN placed about 8th at the start of the round considering stability and previous ranking. 8th to 7th isn't a massive gain.

We 'tacked' to where we wanted to be (going after the high XP roids while avoiding piggies), and stayed there all round since that was where the wind was. We expected that to be the case, and it was. When we NAPed eXilition, they had essentially broken 1up (who, all credit to them, were still fighting away), and Subh were on their side too (who would have been a major ally for 'the other side'). In case you bring it up - we had no relations with Subh all round.

Nah, I'm not fussed whether you had any relations to subh, as in terms of the game as a whole, it would be insignificant in any case. My explanation of your strategy is that VGN and subh is the equivalent to a state such as Trinidad and Tobago declaring war on Germany in 1945. In the sense that you're still in a backwater and aren't really getting much off it bar spite, because unlike WW2, the hostile powers resurface.

A war with Subh would have suited neither of us, and TGV would have simply taken advantage - much like ND taking advantage of the eXil/1up war. The experience would have been great - but you're the person who's been saying that ranking is the be-all and end-all of everything! By hitting Angels/ND/1up, we got massive XP gains.

Originally Posted by furball

long term, lokken, long term.

When you and your rivals are gaining, there's no real upwards movement in the ranking. As i've said previously, tossing up one rank in the bottom 5 to me is worthless, when you aren't really finishing above any alliances that are better than you.

When the round ended, people on AD couldn't stop talking about the effect that VGN and Subh had on the outcome of the round. I find it rather amusing that you now consider us "on the periphery" and that the conflict was "out of our league". That wasn't the heroic NewDawn's thinking in Round 14!

Everybody? Did I say that? Did I say bad exilition you made a block? I don't think I did. As far as I'm concerned your effect was pretty much nil in the grand scheme of things NewDawn because all we needed to do in a war against exilition is stop them and fleetcatch them to hold down a lead and run down the clock. For me people pointing towards exilition blocking are just using excuses for their own performance. I'm the first to admit when my own alliance hasn't played as it should, and we haven't in my opinion. Regardless, our political plays have more than made up for a poor performance. Even so, I wouldn't put it past them to play a cracker at some point when no one really expects them to.

As for round 14. You aren't going to beat a 1up that's bigger than you with the only real active alliance left allied to them and inflated via recruitment, with your HC cut adrift at a vital time in the round. Round 14 was a situation where plan B came into play because we couldn't execute plan A as it was too late in the "endgame" phase. In round 15, "endgame" only existed from December 9th onwards.

ND's essential problem is drive and toughness from top to bottom. If they can get a team together that will hold out for a long time and perform consistently, they'll be very successful. Sadly in the past 2 rounds, we've been painfully short. Our politics are the very least of our problems - if it wasn't for them, we'd be nowhere. The problem for everyone however is that getting people who are utterly committed to the game nowadays is painfully difficult.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by lokken

ND's problem was it's own strength more than anything else dear. If VGN/subh want to keep analysing how to be in other people's pockets, they can analyse all they want for all I care. They're letting themselves be easy pickings for a bigger alliance's benefit if they want to persist. If people choose to attack you in a block situation, you are often stuck with it. When you have room to manoevre you can tack and tack and tack to navigate your way through the universe.

So what are they gaining in terms of tactical expertise if there's no coordination, bar keeping exilition off the grass? With consultation, exilition in a war scenario are going to be working hand over fist to make sure that they're banking up the XP to win the round, even if it doesn't appear that way. I can guarantee you that alliances like VGN and subh would benefit a lot more by taking each other on and gaining real war experience rather than being on the periphery of a conflict that's out of their league.

Although Subh didnt have much if any contact with VGN... We had no desire to goto war with VGN as we didnt get any mass incs from them... Unlike ND.
We/I personally learned a good deal from hitting the bigger allys. How to co-ordinate an attack for an ally of 60ish rather than a BG of 20ish (as subh had been previously.) Being one of the main ones. But to be perfectly honest it wouldnt have been the first time I have Organised a good roiding for ND.

Nothing new to learn from there then.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by buddies

Although Subh didnt have much if any contact with VGN... We had no desire to goto war with VGN as we didnt get any mass incs from them... Unlike ND.

The point i was trying to make is that there's more to be learned from direct conflict rather than simple participation in an all in affair.

We/I personally learned a good deal from hitting the bigger allys. How to co-ordinate an attack for an ally of 60ish rather than a BG of 20ish (as subh had been previously.) Being one of the main ones. But to be perfectly honest it wouldnt have been the first time I have Organised a good roiding for ND.

Nothing new to learn from there then.

Congratulations on your promotion.

I'll reply to JBG's post at some point it's just that his post is so long and will take time i don't have tonight to deal with it.

[furball]

Originally Posted by lokken

So you're chastising us for taking out the blindly obvious massively beneficial strategy. You're a treasure you are (and as such, should be buried on an island, lol). ND isn't an alliance that can win games by itself, hence you have to budget for a grandstand finish, as simply there's no other way. Either way, we're guaranteed a massively inflated rank for our ability.

Chastise you? Far from it, I think ND played the very best round it could, ignoring the collapse at the end. Certainly politically it was near perfect. What I was saying was that it was still going to be difficult to achieve 1st - and why you don't see that was what I was saying is beyond me.

Originally Posted by lokken

Who's expectations? If we look at basic comparisons of alliances, and track record you'ld have VGN placed about 8th at the start of the round considering stability and previous ranking. 8th to 7th isn't a massive gain.

You seem to have forgotten the entire quality argument from about a page ago. Basically: far harder to succeed in r15 than in r14. If you want elaboration on this, just click on page 5 where it sits in all its glory.

Originally Posted by lokken

My explanation of your strategy is that VGN and subh is the equivalent to a state such as Trinidad and Tobago declaring war on Germany in 1945. In the sense that you're still in a backwater and aren't really getting much off it bar spite, because unlike WW2, the hostile powers resurface.

lokken, surely you're not attempting to speak for NewDawn and saying that they will be hostile towards us next round? Last time I checked you were just an eminent advisor to ND HC, but who knows? Certainly 1up and Angels are bearing no grudges...in fact it just seems to be you...

Originally Posted by lokken

When you and your rivals are gaining, there's no real upwards movement in the ranking. As i've said previously, tossing up one rank in the bottom 5 to me is worthless, when you aren't really finishing above any alliances that are better than you.

So the concept of out-roiding your rivals is foreign to you? That was the battlefield that Subh, TGV and ourselves fought on. We didn't need wars - we didn't want wars with each other. All three alliances instead were involved in the main battles of the round, and we were all quite happy with that - as paisley said above.

Oh, and one rank in the 'bottom 5' is worthless to you? That just shows how detached you are from what happens in the rest of the Top 10. Subh are pleased that they came out on top amongst the 'smaller' alliances. TGV will be disappointed to have finished below Subh and VGN. We've accepted our end position, but would far rather have finished 6th. Don't take this as a sign of lack of ambition - we just know that we didn't finish well, just like NewDawn collapsed instead of holding out for the last week.


Essentially, we're happy with how we played the round. We achieved things that we hadn't achieved before, but still have plenty more to do. Politically, we chose not to stay solo and we went with the right people. Militarily, we improved and we learnt how to do things next time. Technically, we made dramatic improvements to our tools to improve attacking after Round 14 - and they were proven in Round 15. Internally, we've gained a hell of a lot in experience, both in and outside the game. All in all, we're now poised to go and achieve that exceptional ranking. We'll credit you in the Winners' Ceremony

[lokken]

Originally Posted by furball

Chastise you? Far from it, I think ND played the very best round it could, ignoring the collapse at the end. Certainly politically it was near perfect. What I was saying was that it was still going to be difficult to achieve 1st - and why you don't see that was what I was saying is beyond me.

I believe that all was required was a reasonable ND performance to avoid defeat. But otherwise, thanks.

You seem to have forgotten the entire quality argument from about a page ago. Basically: far harder to succeed in r15 than in r14. If you want elaboration on this, just click on page 5 where it sits in all its glory.

Was it, I didn't notice. Unless you're 1up, the level of our opposition hasn't changed very much. EX took 1up's place, Angels took reunion's and LCH finished this time.

lokken, surely you're not attempting to speak for NewDawn and saying that they will be hostile towards us next round? Last time I checked you were just an eminent advisor to ND HC, but who knows? Certainly 1up and Angels are bearing no grudges...in fact it just seems to be you...

Nope. Just talking in general terms. I can't represent ND for next round anyway, as i'm sitting next round out from playing in any serious capacity as I feel I need to chill out a bit and learn some new tricks. I don't bear any grudges, I'm just here to tell you why i think you're talking a load of hokey.

As I've said, every round has a different solution and a different approach and ND is totally dedicated to take the best one. ND could be a totally different alliance in future for all anyone knows.

So the concept of out-roiding your rivals is foreign to you? That was the battlefield that Subh, TGV and ourselves fought on. We didn't need wars - we didn't want wars with each other. All three alliances instead were involved in the main battles of the round, and we were all quite happy with that - as paisley said above.

Oh, and one rank in the 'bottom 5' is worthless to you? That just shows how detached you are from what happens in the rest of the Top 10. Subh are pleased that they came out on top amongst the 'smaller' alliances. TGV will be disappointed to have finished below Subh and VGN. We've accepted our end position, but would far rather have finished 6th. Don't take this as a sign of lack of ambition - we just know that we didn't finish well, just like NewDawn collapsed instead of holding out for the last week.

Below the ranking of top 5 which reflect how the round has spun for various alliances, those below only give me "ranges" of ability. To me there's very little difference between 6th and 8th. The big markers of success and failure for you in the top 10 are 1up on your upper limit, F-Crew on your lower. To me the real concept of 'success' would be breaching that top 5 ceiling.

Essentially, we're happy with how we played the round. We achieved things that we hadn't achieved before, but still have plenty more to do. Politically, we chose not to stay solo and we went with the right people. Militarily, we improved and we learnt how to do things next time. Technically, we made dramatic improvements to our tools to improve attacking after Round 14 - and they were proven in Round 15. Internally, we've gained a hell of a lot in experience, both in and outside the game. All in all, we're now poised to go and achieve that exceptional ranking. We'll credit you in the Winners' Ceremony

I'm sure you are, but there are things that have been stated by others in this thread that I believe are plain wrong because they presume there are things that actually exist, when at best they only appear to. To me, blocking when you're a smaller alliance is something to do if you've got not very much to play for or just want to make themselves feel important unless you've got overt hostilities with someone (which to be fair on subh, they've put up a far superior argument on this front). As the rest, it reads like the bullshit I've read in prospectuses or the like because it doesn't actually say anything material, it just tries to look shiny.

Best of luck in winning, although I suspect your comment was a little throwaway.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by furball

TGV will be disappointed to have finished below Subh and VGN.

Our goal was to end top 10 this round to show everyone that the 8th rank in the summeround wasnt a fluke, and we did it. Sadly TGV sufferd as TGV did in r2-5 of alot of shipjumpers. We had alot of good players that found out that the grass was greener on the other side and jumped. None of them finished top 100, and they were top 100 when they left TGV. Sometimes, the grass isnt greener on the other side. We would have ended 6th or maybe even 5th if we hadnt lost theese players. But as I said, our goal was to finish top 10 and we did so.

I sure hope that the game will still make it possible to punish shipjumpers hard. Because shipjumpers are one of the biggest threats to the medium large alliances.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by lokken

How are we relying on anything. We were playing on the nailed on certainty that 1up and Exilition were going to go at each other big time - "fairly safe" is a big understatement, because they hate the backs off each other.

Of all the top alliances, you relied the most on what others were doing or on what you predicted others would be doing. Would ND have stopped Exi from outgrowing everyone? No, but you relied on the fact that Angels and 1up would do the work.
Don't get me wrong, it's not your job to stop Exi. Angels didn't rely on anyone. When Exi outgrew everyone else, we decided to try and put a stop to it ourselves. We believed we had the military quality to stop Exi. We got close but in the end they were the better alliance.

This isn't a blame or anything but my point is that ND relied on the actions of others, more then other alliances did. It's a valid strategy, but I rather play from our own strength rather then "betting" someone else would do the job.

Originally Posted by lokken

ND's problem was it's own strength more than anything else dear.

Care to elaborate on this?

[Sjor]

ok this is only my view and im only speaking about 3 allainces,

the main contenders for the #1 spot this round were: exil, 1up and angels.

it was clear that if 2 ally on 1 the one will lose badly
so there were no agreements from the start between them 3

exil+ started straight from the start to hit 1up

exil did well 1up were dropping, ranking at that time
1 exil
2 angels
3 1up

Angels that were hitting only gals at that time started to also hit gals with exils in it, also not to get the advantage of exil get to big
exil+ took this as an official war start and hit Angels

After seeing that Angels have no chance agasint exil+ Angels had a 2 weeks agreement with 1up to attack exil
after having no success in taking exil down Angels decided to try to make ND win. this was like an unofficial nap to every1 not beeing exil


(Angels hit ND short during the first part of exil war as long everything was open and ND beeing ranked 1 with very fat roids and piggying exil+ on us when we run out of def)

ok this is the round from my view
forgot to add that when i say exil+ is exil with support and support means the pacts they did, also unallied gal members that were taken on the run on 1up and Angels. I hoped for a exil statement what agreements they had during the round but seems the only one able to do it is

At all this isnt a whine thread its just a well done job for the politics department of exil which finally decided the round

Also i need to add that stats this round favoured very much the small alliances making them better than they are. every small planet had at least 5k tzens and while having no roids they were the ideal attackers. This gave exil+ some extra firepower. Small alliances had a greater imapct this round as they had the rounds before


like already stated before the ally with the biggest morale is 1up as they recieved the most incs from exil+ and really this round it was really hard to keep the morale up. i know it im top 10 losing roids all round and felt really bad for recieveing all the def i got

[The_Fish]

[quote=Kjeldoran]This isn't a blame or anything but my point is that ND relied on the actions of others, more then other alliances did. It's a valid strategy, but I rather play from our own strength rather then "betting" someone else would do the job.
QUOTE]

So you're saying we analysed the political landscape, knew exactly what would happen and took advantage of it. Thanks.

[Nadar]

[quote=The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

This isn't a blame or anything but my point is that ND relied on the actions of others, more then other alliances did. It's a valid strategy, but I rather play from our own strength rather then "betting" someone else would do the job.
QUOTE]

[/

[furball]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Our goal was to end top 10 this round to show everyone that the 8th rank in the summeround wasnt a fluke, and we did it. Sadly TGV sufferd as TGV did in r2-5 of alot of shipjumpers. We had alot of good players that found out that the grass was greener on the other side and jumped. None of them finished top 100, and they were top 100 when they left TGV. Sometimes, the grass isnt greener on the other side. We would have ended 6th or maybe even 5th if we hadnt lost theese players. But as I said, our goal was to finish top 10 and we did so.

I sure hope that the game will still make it possible to punish shipjumpers hard. Because shipjumpers are one of the biggest threats to the medium large alliances.

I agree, we were fairly fortunate this round not to suffer from shipjumpers. In Round 13 it was a killer for us.

Originally Posted by Sjor

exil+ started straight from the start to hit 1up

[snip]

forgot to add that when i say exil+ is exil with support and support means the pacts they did, also unallied gal members that were taken on the run on 1up and Angels. I hoped for a exil statement what agreements they had during the round but seems the only one able to do it is

Wrong. The alliances that eXil worked with were never involved in hitting 1up early on (certainly we weren't, and I don't think Subh were either).

Originally Posted by Sjor

At all this isnt a whine thread its just a well done job for the politics department of exil which finally decided the round

I agree.

Originally Posted by Sjor

like already stated before the ally with the biggest morale is 1up as they recieved the most incs from exil+ and really this round it was really hard to keep the morale up. i know it im top 10 losing roids all round and felt really bad for recieveing all the def i got

1up played very well this round, anyone who tries to diminish how hard they played this round is a fool. They had a hell of a lot of incoming.

[Kjeldoran]

[quote=The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

This isn't a blame or anything but my point is that ND relied on the actions of others, more then other alliances did. It's a valid strategy, but I rather play from our own strength rather then "betting" someone else would do the job.
QUOTE]

So you're saying we analysed the political landscape, knew exactly what would happen and took advantage of it. Thanks.

Everyone analysed the political landscape. Some chose to act on it, others chose to wait and gamble on the outcome of other fights and wars. Both are valid tactics, though I know which one to chose.

[Veedeejem!]

so what alliances are actually playing r16?
cba to scroll through 6 pages of whining

[The_Fish]

[quote=Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

Everyone analysed the political landscape. Some chose to act on it, others chose to wait and gamble on the outcome of other fights and wars. Both are valid tactics, though I know which one to chose.

Every day we looked at what was happening, and how we should act on what was going on. You seem to think or imply that we did nothing to reach #1. We both agree we didn't do enough to deserve to win the round, but we did act on what was going on around us. Remember when you took the lead and we hit you hard? Or do you choose to forget that because its ND?

[Hesekiel]

no idea if someone already said it but G-II is gonna be there no matter what [ND]The_Fish says :P

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Veedeejem!

so what alliances are actually playing r16?
cba to scroll through 6 pages of whining

Then go back to page 1 and read Stifler's post...

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Hesekiel

no idea if someone already said it but G-II is gonna be there no matter what [ND]The_Fish says :P

eh? When did I say G-II wont be playing?

[Kjeldoran]

[quote=The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Every day we looked at what was happening, and how we should act on what was going on. You seem to think or imply that we did nothing to reach #1. We both agree we didn't do enough to deserve to win the round, but we did act on what was going on around us. Remember when you took the lead and we hit you hard? Or do you choose to forget that because its ND?

You did not hit us hard because we took the lead. You hit us because Exi and all flak were hitting us, we had most roids and were struggling hard to cover all the incs. you KNEW you'd get free roids and that's why you hit. Also we hit you a few times before (as you nicely stated Angels started the war with ND) ... so your strike might also be a reaction on what Angels did.

I'm sorry but I don't believe your story when you claim you acted on us being #1and hitting us hard because we took the lead. Also, 'hard' isn't the correct word since Exi did the dmg as they sent far more attack fleets our way. But we had heavy losses because adding the ND incs to the rest was abit too much to handle.

At no point did ND believe in their own military strength (I've talked to Gate alot during the round) or did they took the initiative and act upon their own strength. ND rather "reacted" on things that happened. Again, it's a valid strategy, but it's not the one I'd choose. Nonetheless, politically spoken you played an excellent round.

Mind you, this is how I perceived ND, at no point did I receive any indication that ND believes in their own military strength.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Of all the top alliances, you relied the most on what others were doing or on what you predicted others would be doing. Would ND have stopped Exi from outgrowing everyone? No, but you relied on the fact that Angels and 1up would do the work.
Don't get me wrong, it's not your job to stop Exi. Angels didn't rely on anyone. When Exi outgrew everyone else, we decided to try and put a stop to it ourselves. We believed we had the military quality to stop Exi. We got close but in the end they were the better alliance.

This isn't a blame or anything but my point is that ND relied on the actions of others, more then other alliances did. It's a valid strategy, but I rather play from our own strength rather then "betting" someone else would do the job.

I don't believe it's reliance when it's a near certainty - reliance to me suggests some kind of gamble or feeding on someone else's success (hence why there's a gamble and if victory, delusions of grandeur for the alliance that doesn't win) and suggesting that exi and 1up in the same round aren't going to hit each other is basically pointless because we all know it isn't going to happen. We knew this would happen, and acted accordingly. We just saw what was there and went "right, we'll play this way". People might have suggested that we formed our own block - then we'd have no one to roid without getting locked into wars that quite frankly, aren't our business, because we prefer to choose when our wars start and finish.

I disagree with your "own strength" theory, because the fact is you can be strong and get nowhere if the politics aren't right for you. However when it's the other way round, you're far more likely to succeed. While both are important, there are plenty of pretty ordinary alliances who have achieved via the second method, while comparitively few with the former. We just know where we are in comparison to the others and make the best fist of it we can.

Care to elaborate on this?

I know when I see people not hunting down a win, or wanting it enough. Some might call it "fighting spirit" but I think it's more than just that. There were some people who I thought were fairly careless verging on negligent, but there you go really.

Angels might be a better alliance. We don't really care though. It's not as if anyone ever gave a shit about ND.

Obviously our strategy can turn on its head at any time.

[Stoom]

Originally Posted by Sjor

I hoped for a exil statement what agreements they had during the round but seems the only one able to do it is

Kaifux has said some stuff about it in the winners ceremony iirc, about the naps we had etc.

[17:53:36] <[eX-HC]Kaifux> Subh: for being great allies from mid-round, for sticking to agreements and putting your effort into your first round
[17:53:55] <[eX-HC]Kaifux> HR: for being great m8s and doing things on good level, congrats on staying in top 10
[17:54:11] <[eX-HC]Kaifux> VGN: for giving us a chance to be your companions with NAP agreement
[17:54:50] <Appocomaster> thank you
[17:54:50] <[eX-HC]Kaifux> LCH: last days of some cooperation was nice, reminded me hand to hand working in R13, which were again on high level
[17:55:04] <[eX-HC]Kaifux> those were alliances we had contacts with

[Sjor]

Originally Posted by Stoom

Kaifux has said some stuff about it in the winners ceremony iirc, about the naps we had etc.

[17:53:36] <[eX-HC]Kaifux> Subh: for being great allies from mid-round, for sticking to agreements and putting your effort into your first round
[17:53:55] <[eX-HC]Kaifux> HR: for being great m8s and doing things on good level, congrats on staying in top 10
[17:54:11] <[eX-HC]Kaifux> VGN: for giving us a chance to be your companions with NAP agreement
[17:54:50] <Appocomaster> thank you
[17:54:50] <[eX-HC]Kaifux> LCH: last days of some cooperation was nice, reminded me hand to hand working in R13, which were again on high level
[17:55:04] <[eX-HC]Kaifux> those were alliances we had contacts with

he wanted to make an agenda what happened when. or let some1 do it
Just saw that i forgot to end the sentence (damn beer impact)

i hoped for a exil statement what agreements they had during the round but seems the only one able to do it is on a well deserved holiday now

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by lokken

I don't believe it's reliance when it's a near certainty - reliance to me suggests some kind of gamble or feeding on someone else's success (hence why there's a gamble and if victory, delusions of grandeur for the alliance that doesn't win) and suggesting that exi and 1up in the same round aren't going to hit each other is basically pointless because we all know it isn't going to happen. We knew this would happen, and acted accordingly. We just saw what was there and went "right, we'll play this way". People might have suggested that we formed our own block - then we'd have no one to roid without getting locked into wars that quite frankly, aren't our business, because we prefer to choose when our wars start and finish.

I disagree with your "own strength" theory, because the fact is you can be strong and get nowhere if the politics aren't right for you. However when it's the other way round, you're far more likely to succeed. While both are important, there are plenty of pretty ordinary alliances who have achieved via the second method, while comparitively few with the former. We just know where we are in comparison to the others and make the best fist of it we can.



I know when I see people not hunting down a win, or wanting it enough. Some might call it "fighting spirit" but I think it's more than just that. There were some people who I thought were fairly careless verging on negligent, but there you go really.

Angels might be a better alliance. We don't really care though. It's not as if anyone ever gave a shit about ND.

Obviously our strategy can turn on its head at any time.

mmm, when I say "rely" on others, I obviously do not mean the inevitable war between 1up and Exi. But, and this is just my guess, you knew/hoped Angels would go for a direct confrontation with Exi because you knew we had the label of "fencesitters" or "support Exi" stuck on us.
So you counted on a direct confrontation. Clever thinking nonetheless, because it put you in a dream position of EVERY alliance going for the win. All the stronger alliances were caught in a war while you cruised 2/3rd of the round.

That's what I mean with relying. I don't believe ND would have initiated a war. Why? Because you knew you'd most likely lose it.

That you don't believe in my "own strength" theory, that's your fair right. I do believe it works and it'll be how I play PA and how I run my alliance.

All in all, on the political and strategic point, ND showed it has some skills. On the military side I'm hardly impressed. Not that you performed bad, but certainly not remarkably well either.

If I'd make a top5 of the strongest military alliances then it'd look something like:

1: Exilition
2: Angels (put us before 1up because I'm biassed and there's little difference here imo)
3: 1up
4: LCH (I believe purely on military skills, LCH would be stronger then ND)
5: ND

rgds Kj

[tombcfc]

ok add another to confirmed subh will be playing :P

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by tombcfc

ok add another to confirmed subh will be playing :P

I Knew I forgot to say something on this thread

[robban1]

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...&postcount=120

well now i have been awayish some days and re-read treads here and so. cna anyone pls tell me what on earth he said there that made him deserve a 5 month ban? alliance discussion is ppl talking about allies, f.ex A from allie B thinks allie C is shit and D from C say the same to A , so what big deal, both comments are without values as its a single persons opinions.

so banning A for something of the above isnt helping the discussions really so unban him pls or soon you be alone here, mr mod

cheers

[furball]

I can tell you took your time coming up with that gem.

Originally Posted by lokken

As ever, whenever i ban someone's mate, someone plays the political card. If there's a surefire way to piss a mod off it's either to say that you're deliberately trying to get a rise out of people, or simply saying AD's cack, all this discussion is pointless. Either one gets you banned for being plain derogatory to the users of this forum. Mystical jumped through the second hoop pretty successfully.

The fact that your account is still open is down to the fact that you are trying to get a rise out of me as moderator on this forum rather than anyone else. I have to be open to all criticism, meaning I have to put up with people's cack when they argue about being banned, usually when they bring politics into the equation, when politics had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Mystical is a good BC is he? Good for him. He could be Sid for all I care, he's still banned.

You see, Skyhead - what you've got to differentiate between are "posts you disagree with" and "posts that are objectively shit". Mystical's post is in category 2, simply because it was derogatory to the forum as a whole and basically said no one was entitled to an opinion, with everything settled in game - so I just obliged, Mystical can sort stuff out in game from now on, if he wants to say AD is rubbish no one should post. Rikard keeps to the rules, and makes good posts. HK keeps to the rules, and makes good posts. Most people are pretty sensible when they get banned on a first offence, and get unbanned near immediately.

Take your time coming up with a reply - wouldn't want it to be any worse than the first.

[Squidly]

Originally Posted by robban1

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...&postcount=120

well now i have been awayish some days and re-read treads here and so. cna anyone pls tell me what on earth he said there that made him deserve a 5 month ban? alliance discussion is ppl talking about allies, f.ex A from allie B thinks allie C is shit and D from C say the same to A , so what big deal, both comments are without values as its a single persons opinions.

so banning A for something of the above isnt helping the discussions really so unban him pls or soon you be alone here, mr mod

cheers

Originally Posted by Lokken

As ever, whenever i ban someone's mate, someone plays the political card. If there's a surefire way to piss a mod off it's either to say that you're deliberately trying to get a rise out of people, or simply saying AD's cack, all this discussion is pointless. Either one gets you banned for being plain derogatory to the users of this forum. Mystical jumped through the second hoop pretty successfully.

He was banned for calling AD itself shite and basically how it is completely useless etc. And I sincerely doubt anyone is crying their eyes out over myst being banned. If they are... err... well... I don't know what to say about that tbh :eek:

[robban1]

Originally Posted by Squidly

He was banned for calling AD itself shite and basically how it is completely useless etc. And I sincerely doubt anyone is crying their eyes out over myst being banned. If they are... err... well... I don't know what to say about that tbh :eek:

his opinion is worth just as much as your no matter what content his post have or your posts

[Squidly]

Originally Posted by robban1

his opinion is worth just as much as your no matter what content his post have or your posts

Ofc. Don't get me wrong here. It wasn't his opinion no matter how much I or anyone else agree/disagree with it that got him banned... it was the needless comment of calling AD shite and the like that was the problem. {imo }

Everything else in that post was just peachy I think. (someone correct me if I'm wrong though )

Edit: Missing words ftw.

[furball]

Basically he held the opinion that AD was worthless and didn't matter in the slightest. In view of this, lokken banned him on the basis that if it was useless, then there was no point in him being on AD. The ban's entirely logical - and robban, I bet that if he was a 1up player, you'd be entirely in favour of the ban.

[TheBerk]

I have a problem with that, ok, he said AD was worthless, but to ban him from all areas on the basis that 'it doesnt matter if he's banned he doesnt like AD anyway' is, well, uncalled for.

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by furball

Basically he held the opinion that AD was worthless

Originally Posted by Lokken

or simply saying AD's cack, all this discussion is pointless.

I dont get this interpretation at all.

He said:

Originally Posted by Mystical

The forum is poisened anyways..

As far as im concerned he is right. AD is filled with lies and half truths, hence it is a propaganda tool and used accordingly.

Originally Posted by Mystical

only look at who is green and who is red hehe... (except for some exceptions)

The green dot red dot reputation system is a bit flawed. GD users are generally much kinder in their spread of reputation dots with each other. 2 or 3 gd users who rarely pop in AD, can do so, spread some dots around or take them away and AD becomes unbalanced with the dot situation. There are quite a few AD users who have glowing "reputations" who I find myself asking why. (probably include myself in there)

Originally Posted by Mystical

All that people trying to do here is put others in a bad daylight.. i get sick of it. just play and stop the continueous bullshitting and bitching eachother alltho somethings could be based on facts our are realitiy. It doesnt really matter.

Maybe hes a little naive and tender hearted. But after all, AD is just 1 long arguement. This is one of its draws but some people love to beat dead horses. Ive learned to spot and skip most of the yabba yabba over the years but my first bunch of rounds I couldnt believe how long the whiney arguements went on once someone got a hook in their mouth.

Ive had alot of problems with Lokkens moderation in the past. The last 2-3 rounds though I think he has done a tremendous job. This type of banning on his part though makes me shake my head. Mystical has the right to speak out against or for whomever he feels like. And Lokken banning him for speaking against something Lokken cares for is plain wrong.

[robban1]

Originally Posted by furball

Basically he held the opinion that AD was worthless and didn't matter in the slightest. In view of this, lokken banned him on the basis that if it was useless, then there was no point in him being on AD. The ban's entirely logical - and robban, I bet that if he was a 1up player, you'd be entirely in favour of the ban.

nah banning is bad as a concept ,,,if ppl thinks hes off the record delete the post and tell him that he did wrong and its np.
btw if we elaborate a bit and see it in his way a bit what good/bad have we seen in ad for the past 6 months? <--(that is a question not an opinion)

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by robban1

btw if we elaborate a bit and see it in his way a bit what good/bad have we seen in ad for the past 6 months? <--(that is a question not an opinion)

AD is a way for alliances to communicate and a great tool for propaganda. It is also a good way to get info, because ive seen first hand people slip up sensitive info in the heat of the moment. It is also a great manipulating tool. You can hurt an alliances or an individuals rep through AD. Its also a great place to see and participate in slap fests. Ad is what it is. And it is here for a reason. I dont think mystical was wrong in what he was saying. I do think he has a different view of what AD is then everyone else.

[Gower]

When in doubt use propeganda even if most PA players have brains

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

The green dot red dot reputation system is a bit flawed. GD users are generally much kinder in their spread of reputation dots with each other. 2 or 3 gd users who rarely pop in AD, can do so, spread some dots around or take them away and AD becomes unbalanced with the dot situation. There are quite a few AD users who have glowing "reputations" who I find myself asking why. (probably include myself in there)

The key is to be nice to AD gods like JBG so atleast they don't ruin your rep, and to piss off pple with red dots ... I've had about 10 neg reps the last few days (mostly from ND), I didn't drop much points.

But it's idd flawed, though all in all it has "some" truth in it, not?

[furball]

Originally Posted by robban1

btw if we elaborate a bit and see it in his way a bit what good/bad have we seen in ad for the past 6 months? <--(that is a question not an opinion)

There's been plenty of good threads, as well as some dire ones.


I'd say this very thread is an excellent example of AD threads.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Chika

Free PR FTW

Either way, my methode seems to work better then yours hun

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Either way, my methode seems to work better then yours hun

Doubt it. My word carries a lot more water than yours does. And not just because I say so.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Chika

Doubt it. My word carries a lot more water than yours does. And not just because I say so.

If you say so ... it interests me little tbh

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

If you say so ... it interests me little tbh

SEE!!!! I specifically said "NOT BECAUSE I SAY SO"
You simply do not comprehend the Queens English, and it shows when you post. This is quite minor, but normally its on a large scale.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Chika

SEE!!!! I specifically said "NOT BECAUSE I SAY SO"
You simply do not comprehend the Queens English, and it shows when you post. This is quite minor, but normally its on a large scale.

The word "Irony" doesn't mean much to you, does it ... why else would I start with "if you say so" ... god you're stupid and not just because I say so.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

The word "Irony" doesn't mean much to you, does it ... why else would I start with "if you say so" ... god you're stupid and not just because I say so.

You resorted to the lamest inet verbal creativity possible. "You are stupid" is widely accepted as lame.
The only thing ironic is how my siggy should be taped to your forehead.
You inet master you.